Tradition

So when it comes to Scripture, the Orthodox, as far as I know, have never made a dogmatic decision on the Scriptures, both Old and New. The Latin Church had a few local councils at the end of the 4th century that discussed what makes up the Scriptures for the Christian Church (Hippo 393 and Carthage 397). Those were Western councils and do not concern us in the East. Do we agree with what those local Latin councils deem as New Testament Scripture? Sure. Old Testament? Sure, why not, although our OT is larger.

The consensus of the early Church is what we find in New Testament and believed to be inspired by God. The oldest manuscripts that we have include books that we do not find in the present day New Testament such as the letters of Clement of Rome and some others.
So, you see scripture as an authority over the Church, one body? ___

You don't hold to the camp that says since our church told everyone what books/letters belong in the canon as the God breathed scriptures then the OE-(which i thought you consider yourself) therefore has the authority to tell everyone what doctrines to believe?
 
Before 1st Nicaea there were various ways in which the early Christians celebrated Pascha.

Before the first Council of Nicaea, the early Christians were taught "oral and written tradition" by Apostolic authority. (i.e. John 4:23-24) It's reasonable to conclude that those holy traditions were true worship celebrations. In other words, the Apostolic authority would not lead early Christians into deception.

The early Church just decided to create a universal date to celebrate the Lords Resurrections.

The earlier churches in Asia Minor were taught, by the Apostle John, in what manner to worship. (i.e. John 4:23-24) I affirm that the earlier Church worshiped the Father in spirit and truth and were true worshipers. (i.e. Saint Polycarp, bishop Polycrates, and the parishes of all Asia)

None of the earlier churches in Asia Minor disagreed with the actual day of Jesus' resurrection, nor did they claim that it was wrong to celebrate Jesus' resurrection on the actual day. (i.e. on the first day of the week - our Sunday today) Furthermore, the churches in Asia Minor celebrated Nisan 14 as the day to commemorate the entire historical truth of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. This holy tradition directly corresponds to "written" Holy Scripture as understood by Christians today. (i.e. Matthew 26:2; Mark 8:31 - i.e. prophecies spoken by Christ and fulfilled "verbatim" by Christ - i.e. Jesus is a true prophet, affirmed by many of the Church Fathers) Also, please note that (Mark 8:31) covers the entire time period from Jesus' death to Jesus' resurrection. (i.e. starting and ending points were both included in Christ's "verbatim" resurrection prophecies - also, starting and ending points, as understood in real time, were both on the Sabbath "day" by the spirit of the law (Reference: Key of David illustrations - In other words, the Lord rested on the Sabbath)) (i.e. Reference: tradition of a 40-hour "day" fast in the writings of St. Irenaeus)

In this "specific" case we can see Christian unity within Christian diversity - (i.e. Ephesians 4:11-16)
According to the Gospel and following the rule of faith, the Sabbath day by the "spirit" of the law was observed and celebrated through both of these holy traditions:

(i.e. Saint Polycarp, bishop Polycrates, and the parishes of all Asia) - Pascha - Nisan 14 - Matthew 26:2; Mark 8:31) - (i.e. day of month observed)
(i.e. early Church after Council of Nicaea 325 AD - the first day of the week - Mark 8:31) (i.e. day of week observed)


The early Church just decided to create a universal date to celebrate the Lords Resurrections.

Does one agree with the definition of holy tradition as stated on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodoxy?

(i.e. "In Eastern Orthodoxy, it is believed that "faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all", the faith taught by Jesus to the apostles, given life by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and passed down to future generations without additions and without subtractions, is known as holy tradition.[34][35] Holy tradition does not change in the Eastern Orthodox Church because it encompasses those things that do not change: the nature of the one God in Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the history of God's interactions with his peoples, the Law as given to the Israelites, all Christ's teaching as given to the disciples and Jews and recorded in scripture, including the parables, the prophecies, the miracles, and his own example to humanity in his extreme humility. It encompasses also the worship of the church, which grew out of the worship of the synagogue and temple and was extended by Christ at the last supper, and the relationship between God and his people which that worship expresses, which is also evidenced between Christ and his disciples. It includes the authority that Christ bestowed on his disciples when he made them apostles.[36]")

[34]. Ware 1993, pp. 195–196.
[35]. Letter of 1718, in George Williams, The Orthodox Church of the East in the 18th Century, p. 17
[36]. Bible: Matthew 16:19


In Messiah’s (Christ’s) service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo Gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
 
But, "the continuous living memory" isn't necessarily a "for sure" thing. That's my question.
We would would say yes, "the continuous living memory" of the Church is a "for sure" thing
Irenaeus was clearly wrong at this point while rightly recognized as a Church Father in both the east and west.
The early Fathers differed in certain areas, like your example about St Irenaeus.

If there are differences, and there were, about what you consider for sure continuous living memory, then why should I believe your continuous living memory is a for sure thing?

For example, we have different, contradictory traditions taught concurrently in different parts of the church on which deuterocanonical books should be recognized as Scripture.
When it comes to the issue of the Old Testament Scriptures, it depended on what ones native language was. Greek speaking Christians used the Septuagint while non-Greek speaking Christians used the Hebrew texts. For the Orthodox, this is not a matter of salvation. Western Christians use only part of the Septuagint or none of it while Eastern Christians use the whole of the Septuagint. This is mainly an issue of culture and language.

Which Septuagint? All the old manuscripts of the "Septuagint" were all over the place on which books were included. These traditional responses don't actually answer the serious questions from history because they are not considering what actually happened in history. There simply was no unanimity among the deuterocanonical book on what's included in the Septuagint for the first 5 centuries of the Church.

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Therefore, Scripture is perfect and was designed to be the source for equipping the Children of God for every good work.
Amen! However, this passage does not speak of Scripture by itself. First off, when we look at this passage in context, going back to verses 10 and 11, St Paul is reminding St Timothy of what he learned and who he learned it form, "Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions, my sufferings, what befell me at Antioch, at Ico′nium, and at Lystra, what persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me." This is an appeal to tradition.

And? I'm not denying appeals to tradition in General. I'm only rejecting that Tradition is a "for sure" thing. Any Tradition could be, but I have no reason to believe that any set of Traditions, outside of Scripture, is necessarily true.

I hope what I am about to write down will help to answer your overall question about tradition and when we see differences in teaching in both East and West (here I am thinking mainly the Orthodox East and Catholic West whom both appeal to tradition).

There are two levels of theology: theologia prima (which the Greeks call theologia); and theologia secunda (which the Greeks call theoria). The former is the foundational belief of the Church, as embedded in its rule of prayer, which is to say, its liturgical texts, in keeping with the maxim "lex orandi, lex cradendi". Here is an example, both the Orthodox East and the Catholic West believe in purification of the soul after death. This is the shared theologia prima by the two Churches. However, the Latin Church (Roman Catholic) chose to go beyond the theologia prima and define this as purgatory (theologia secunda). The theologia secunda or second level theology has to do with language, history and culture. Esencially, East and West believe in the same thing here, the East however, choses not to define the theologia prima. Hope this makes sense lol!

Interesting.

God Bless
 
So, you see scripture as an authority over the Church, one body? ___
Yes, I do see Scripture as an authority over the Church. They are the Sacred texts that speak of Christ and the Gospel.

You don't hold to the camp that says since our church told everyone what books/letters belong in the canon as the God breathed scriptures then the OE-(which i thought you consider yourself) therefore has the authority to tell everyone what doctrines to believe?
I believe that the Orthodox faith holds the fulness of truth and that we have a duty to spread the good news across the earth. If someone chooses to believe in what the Orthodox faith teaches that is their choice, just some choose not too.
 
Before the first Council of Nicaea, the early Christians were taught "oral and written tradition" by Apostolic authority. (i.e. John 4:23-24) It's reasonable to conclude that those holy traditions were true worship celebrations. In other words, the Apostolic authority would not lead early Christians into deception.



The earlier churches in Asia Minor were taught, by the Apostle John, in what manner to worship. (i.e. John 4:23-24) I affirm that the earlier Church worshiped the Father in spirit and truth and were true worshipers. (i.e. Saint Polycarp, bishop Polycrates, and the parishes of all Asia)

None of the earlier churches in Asia Minor disagreed with the actual day of Jesus' resurrection, nor did they claim that it was wrong to celebrate Jesus' resurrection on the actual day. (i.e. on the first day of the week - our Sunday today) Furthermore, the churches in Asia Minor celebrated Nisan 14 as the day to commemorate the entire historical truth of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. This holy tradition directly corresponds to "written" Holy Scripture as understood by Christians today. (i.e. Matthew 26:2; Mark 8:31 - i.e. prophecies spoken by Christ and fulfilled "verbatim" by Christ - i.e. Jesus is a true prophet, affirmed by many of the Church Fathers) Also, please note that (Mark 8:31) covers the entire time period from Jesus' death to Jesus' resurrection. (i.e. starting and ending points were both included in Christ's "verbatim" resurrection prophecies - also, starting and ending points, as understood in real time, were both on the Sabbath "day" by the spirit of the law (Reference: Key of David illustrations - In other words, the Lord rested on the Sabbath)) (i.e. Reference: tradition of a 40-hour "day" fast in the writings of St. Irenaeus)

In this "specific" case we can see Christian unity within Christian diversity - (i.e. Ephesians 4:11-16)
According to the Gospel and following the rule of faith, the Sabbath day by the "spirit" of the law was observed and celebrated through both of these holy traditions:

(i.e. Saint Polycarp, bishop Polycrates, and the parishes of all Asia) - Pascha - Nisan 14 - Matthew 26:2; Mark 8:31) - (i.e. day of month observed)
(i.e. early Church after Council of Nicaea 325 AD - the first day of the week - Mark 8:31) (i.e. day of week observed)




Does one agree with the definition of holy tradition as stated on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodoxy?

(i.e. "In Eastern Orthodoxy, it is believed that "faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all", the faith taught by Jesus to the apostles, given life by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and passed down to future generations without additions and without subtractions, is known as holy tradition.[34][35] Holy tradition does not change in the Eastern Orthodox Church because it encompasses those things that do not change: the nature of the one God in Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the history of God's interactions with his peoples, the Law as given to the Israelites, all Christ's teaching as given to the disciples and Jews and recorded in scripture, including the parables, the prophecies, the miracles, and his own example to humanity in his extreme humility. It encompasses also the worship of the church, which grew out of the worship of the synagogue and temple and was extended by Christ at the last supper, and the relationship between God and his people which that worship expresses, which is also evidenced between Christ and his disciples. It includes the authority that Christ bestowed on his disciples when he made them apostles.[36]")

[34]. Ware 1993, pp. 195–196.
[35]. Letter of 1718, in George Williams, The Orthodox Church of the East in the 18th Century, p. 17
[36]. Bible: Matthew 16:19


In Messiah’s (Christ’s) service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo Gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
You are more knowledgeable than I on the controversies over the date of Pascha. The date of Easter is now universally accepted throughout the world. Is the date of celebrating our Lords Resurrection a matter of salvation? I don't think that it is. I agree with what you say about oral tradition and the worship of the Church.
 
If there are differences, and there were, about what you consider for sure continuous living memory, then why should I believe your continuous living memory is a for sure thing?
Are you speaking of the brothers of Jesus specifically?

Which Septuagint?
True. The Ethiopian Jewish community uses the whole of the Septuagint. This is what I have read and what books that include, I am not sure. The Roman Catholic Church includes the 7 "deuterocanonical" books and the Eastern Orthodox Old Testament includes more than the Roman Catholic Church. Why? I would say that it has to do with what part of the Hellenistic world they were living in and what they had access to.

Have a blessed day!
 
If there are differences, and there were, about what you consider for sure continuous living memory, then why should I believe your continuous living memory is a for sure thing?
Are you speaking of the brothers of Jesus specifically?

Among many other things.

Which Septuagint?
True. The Ethiopian Jewish community uses the whole of the Septuagint. This is what I have read and what books that include, I am not sure. The Roman Catholic Church includes the 7 "deuterocanonical" books and the Eastern Orthodox Old Testament includes more than the Roman Catholic Church. Why? I would say that it has to do with what part of the Hellenistic world they were living in and what they had access to.

So, why should I think you are correct with your Orthodox continuous living memory on the deuterocanonical books and the Catholics and Ethiopians are wrong?

Frankly, I think I've said my piece. I'm more interested in you understanding where I'm coming from than actually convincing you that I'm correct. We evangelicals took a minimalist approach We simply accept only those books which were recognized by everyone as canon. A position with a rich tradition in the West with notable advocates including Jerome, Pope Gregory the Great, and Cardinal Cajetan to name a few. It was only with Trent that Rome finally spoke on the topic, and it is my opinion that they only affirmed those seven extra books because the Reformers rejected them. The preferred position among the theologically trained in the west up until and through the early Reformation was to reject the deuterocanonical as not bad but simply not God breathed—the position that the Reformers took.

God Bless
 
Yes, I do see Scripture as "an" authority over the Church. They are the Sacred texts that speak of Christ and the Gospel.


I believe that the Orthodox faith holds the fulness of truth and that we have a duty to spread the good news across the earth. If someone chooses to believe in what the Orthodox faith teaches that is their choice, just some choose not too.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say "an" but "The" authority over the Church. Written texts that are considered His very Words.

Been a part of fellowships that also believed they were the only true church because of the truths they drew from Scripture. Which I believe caused more harm than good. I wouldn't have a problem with you saying you I believe the scriptures "teach" and you spend the time showing me how you reasoned this out, but when you say they the OE have truths the rest of us can't get without something OE has the rest of us don't --> Like direct Apostolic succession. That's where I'd have to reason from scripture this wouldn't be so-and just one comes to mind-Luke 10:25-26 Why would Jesus ask an expert in the Law “How do you read it?” prove -“what must I do to inherit eternal life?” from scripture. For me that is one example of what even The early Bishop of Lyons expressed when he said-quote: let us return to our argument from the writings of those Apostles who composed the Gospel,[* proving from what they have set down as their view concerning God, that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Truth, and in Him is no lie. end quote.
This same Bishop i'm quoting wouldn't be an Authority equal with scripture, but i'd listen to his reason for believing a truth as long as it was proved by the writings of those Apostles who composed the Gospels and letters to church's.

Along with the Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew- i found many of his reasons from scripture to be very helpful in a fuller understanding of circumcision that some of MJ would say is still necessary- Quote: For if it were necessary, as you suppose, God would not have made Adam uncircumcised; would not have had respect to the gifts of Abel when, being uncircumcised, he offered sacrifice and would not have been pleased with the uncircumcision of Enoch, who was not found, because God had translated him. end quote
 
So, why should I think you are correct with your Orthodox continuous living memory on the deuterocanonical books and the Catholics and Ethiopians are wrong?
It's not so much a question of right or wrong. It has to do with what books are used during used during the liturgical life of a particular Church.

Frankly, I think I've said my piece.
Fair enough.

I'm more interested in you understanding where I'm coming from than actually convincing you that I'm correct.
It has been a pleasant discussion!
 
Case in point:

(Polycarp - Pastor and Martyr - (remembered - February 23))

Saint Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, along with all of the parishes of all Asia, held that the [.... fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's passover...] (Eusebius, Church History, Book V Chapter 23)

["...All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith....]
(wikipedia.org - wiki Polycrates of Ephesus)

Saint Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, along with all of the parishes of all Asia: (i.e. Holy tradition in worship practice)

"All these observed... according to the Gospel... following the rule of faith..." = "... faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all ..."

"... deviating in no respect, ..." = "... and passed down to future generations without additions and without subtractions, ..."

"[.... fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's passover..." = "... It encompasses also the worship of the church, which grew out of the worship of the synagogue and temple ..."


Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodoxy (emphasis mine)

(i.e. "In Eastern Orthodoxy, it is believed that "faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all", the faith taught by Jesus to the apostles, given life by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and passed down to future generations without additions and without subtractions, is known as holy tradition.[34][35] Holy tradition does not change in the Eastern Orthodox Church because it encompasses those things that do not change: the nature of the one God in Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the history of God's interactions with his peoples, the Law as given to the Israelites, all Christ's teaching as given to the disciples and Jews and recorded in scripture, including the parables, the prophecies, the miracles, and his own example to humanity in his extreme humility. It encompasses also the worship of the church, which grew out of the worship of the synagogue and temple and was extended by Christ at the last supper, and the relationship between God and his people which that worship expresses, which is also evidenced between Christ and his disciples. It includes the authority that Christ bestowed on his disciples when he made them apostles.[36]")

[34]. Ware 1993, pp. 195–196.
[35]. Letter of 1718, in George Williams, The Orthodox Church of the East in the 18th Century, p. 17
[36]. Bible: Matthew 16:19


Holy Tradition does not change! Repent! God is not mocked. (i.e. Galatians 6:7)


... The early Church just decided to create a universal date to celebrate the Lords Resurrections. ...

"Specifically" regarding a "universal" date to observe Jesus' Resurrection, did Jesus or the Apostles believe in the tradition created at the first Council of Nicaea? Did Saint Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, along with all of the parishes of all Asia believe in that tradition created at the first Council of Nicaea? Answer: No, they did not!

In other words, the early Church just decided to subtract Holy tradition from the earlier Church, and then decided to add a man-made tradition (not Holy Spirit "inspired"), that coincidently, "nullifies" the word of God "on earth" (i.e. Matthew 26:2; Mark 8:31), "quenches" the Holy Spirit "on earth", and "despises" all of Christ's fulfilled "verbatim" resurrection prophecies "on earth". (i.e. 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21) Who spear-headed this heresy? Answer: Pontifex Maximus Caesar Constantine! The same evil one who persecuted the Church "on earth"!


Romans 1:17-19 Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982

17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who [1]suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is [2]manifest [3]in them, for God has shown it to them.

Footnotes: [1] hold down [2] evident [3] among


The date of Easter is now universally accepted throughout the world.

(i.e. Jude 1:4; Revelation 12:9)

Maranatha


In Messiah’s (Christ’s) service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo Gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
 
Last edited:
Back
Top