Tradition
- Thread starter ziapueblo
- Start date
Well you're not alone. I was getting ready to jump in and defend an RC until I read the moderator's notes. Being simply a Christian of no specific denomination I have found salt and light in various doctrinal traditions but especially in Orthodox ECF theology even though most Catholic ceremonial definitions and traditions are beyond me.
The Philokalia 1-4 was an amazing yet often challenging read and now the Homilies of St. Makarios are a cool drink for this parched wayward son each night.
I don't understand the reason for the segregation but it's a Protestant site foremost.
The Philokalia 1-4 was an amazing yet often challenging read and now the Homilies of St. Makarios are a cool drink for this parched wayward son each night.
I don't understand the reason for the segregation but it's a Protestant site foremost.
So i'm interested in understanding EO view on tradition, but i see you posted this some time ago.
Let me start by asking how you understand Matt 15:3-9 speaks to traditions created by men, they nullified the word of God for the sake of their tradition. Jesus quotes Exodus 20:12; Deut. 5:16 to correct them. ?
ziapueblo
Active member
So Tradition, in the Orthodox understanding, is what was handed down to us from Christ, to His Apostles and then down to the present day. Tradition, for Orthodox Christians, are the Scriptures, the Liturgy (main worship service of the Church), the hymns we sing, the Councils and the teachings of the Fathers.
We believe exactly what Christ is speaking about, man made traditions. However, there are Traditions that come from the Apostles, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter (2 Thessalonians 2:15)."
davbeh2010
Active member
Please define "by us" in (2 Thessalonians 2:15), as understood and accepted, by the Eastern Orthodox authorities.
In Messiah’s (Christ’s) service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo Gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
ziapueblo
Active member
When St Paul wrote his epistle to the Thessalonians, "by us," he is referring to himself and the Apostles.
davbeh2010
Active member
Thank you for your answer, I agree 100%.
All true believers in Jesus Christ "on earth" should adhere to the “faith once delivered to the saints" "on earth". From my perspective, this is not happening in Christian doctrine and practice today "on earth".
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)
In other words, Saint Polycarp, bishop Polycrates, along with all of the faithful in Christ "on earth", adhered to the “faith once delivered to the saints" "on earth". (i.e. observed the Passover according to the Gospel - the fourteenth day - 1 Corinthians 5:7 ... Christ, our Passover lamb ...)
Can the same be said of the Eastern Orthodox membership today "on earth"?
In Messiah’s (Christ’s) service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo Gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
I seem to be seeing a justification for Traditions that are found in the teachings of early church Fathers-why should we accept the decisions of the OE as to which writings are or are not considered on par with the Letters of Paul? Or do you not see them as such?
If i am understanding you correctly- Scriptures like which ones- Gen-Ex-Lev-Num-Deut ? Who decided this? Plus what? Here's an early post about the Canon.
1 TIMOTHY 4:13 Until I come, give attention to the public reading of scripture,
Acts 15:31 When they read it aloud, the people rejoiced at its encouragement.
Colossians 4:16 And after you have read this letter, have it read to the church of Laodicea. In turn, read the letter from Laodicea as well.
I believe it could be said that the reading of Paul's letters in an assembly would equate them with scripture?
So you doubt the authenticity of 2 Peter 3:16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.-- yet the writer claims to know Paul the Apostle.
Without a Church counsel on what can or cannot be read in a church assembly-they were instructed by the Apostles that i guess some are saying we just lost their decision on what would be read and as though Paul's letters wouldn't be enough?
Did we really need a church counsel to tell us John's gospel should be considered scripture? The Apostle was alive when it was circulating.
John 20:30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may believe 31 Or may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Quote: What is noteworthy for our purposes here is that the Muratorian fragment affirms 22 of the 27 books of the New Testament. These include the four Gospels, Acts, all 13 epistles of Paul, Jude, 1 John, 2 John (and possibly 3rd John), and Revelation. This means that at a remarkably early point (end of the second century), the central core of the New Testament canon was already established and in place. end Quote:- https://michaeljkruger.com/ten-basi...orian-fragment-lists-22-of-our-27-nt-books-2/
Quote: Clement of Alexandria (c.198) had a remarkably similar position, affirming the 4 gospels, 13 epistles of Paul, Hebrews, Acts, 1 Peter, 1&2 John, Jude, and Revelation. Such a widespread affirmation of these books could not have happened overnight (sort of a “big bang” theory of canon), but would have required some predecessors. end Quote https://michaeljkruger.com/459/
So why such a focus on the Canon- Some would say how do you know what's scripture without the Church?
DoctrinesofGraceBapt
Well-known member
I don't mean to be rude, but to my ears I think your definition needs tweeking. You said Tradition is handed dow to us from Christ, to his Apostles, but then mentioned councils. You didn't mean the Nicaea was written out by an apostle; did you? You meant the Councils include things from Christ to his Apostles; right? Now, Scripture makes sense under this definition. Church Fathers? If anything, the Church Fathers were not ubiquitous in their teaches. So although they may contain Tradition from Christ to his Apostles, how can we know which is man made and with is the traditions which were taught by the Apostles, not found already in Scripture?
God Bless
ziapueblo
Active member
Are you speaking of the celebration of Pascha (Easter)? The Orthodox follow the format given at the First Council of Nicaea. We would say that this is adhering to the “faith once delivered to the saints".
Sorry for the late response. I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving!
ziapueblo
Active member
Is your general question about how we know what Scripture is?
ziapueblo
Active member
That is not what I meant to say. Thank you for the clarification.
From the Orthodox perspective, what was taught at Nicaea, for example, is what was handed down.
Yes. For example, the profession of faith found in the First Council of Nicaea.
From the Orthodox perspective we would say we know what is true due to the living memory of the Church, that is to say, the Holy Spirit guiding the Church.
I did not feel anything in your response wad rude. I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving!
DoctrinesofGraceBapt
Well-known member
Fair.
I understand you saying "we know what is true due to the living memory of the Church, that is to say, the Holy Spirit guiding the Church.", and in general, that makes sense and is likely true in many cases, eg the Trinity. But historically, there were a lot of false teachers and false traditions that were affirmed for a time only to be later rejected. How can we know for sure that one position is correct, outside of those things taught in Scripture? Catholics have statues; Orthodox have Icons; Protestants have none of the above. Catholics say Jesus' "brothers" are cousins, some Orthodox claim they are step brothers; while Protestants claim Mary wasn't a perpetual virgin. How can we know for sure?
God Bless, I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving too.
ziapueblo
Active member
Sure, like the Christian presbyter Arius who studied in Alexandria and some followed his teachings.
I would answer this in the same way that I did earlier, the continuous living memory of the Church. We rely on what was handed down from one generation to the next. The first book of the New Testament was written somewhere around 50 AD (almost 20 years after the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ) and the last book was written somewhere between 75-100 AD, depending on who you ask. The Church grew during these years. For example, the Holy Scriptures. There was no Bible as we know of it now. After all the books of the New Testament were written, not all Christian communities had copies of these text. Maybe a copy of one or two of St Paul's epistles. Maybe only a portion of an epistle. Possibly a Gospel. These early Christian communities may not have even had entire copies of the Old Testament, yet the Christians still worshiped God and spread the Gospel throughout the known world using the Traditions handed down to them both in any writings that they may have had and what was taught about Christ orally, which for the Orthodox is mainly through the worship of the Church. In ancient times, what was taught orally was sound proof. When it came to writing things down, anyone could write whatever they liked.
Icons have always been part of the early Christian Church. We see these early icons and symbols painted or carved on the walls of the catacombs where the early Christians worshiped. This is still seen to this day in Orthodox Churches. The Roman Catholic Church has a tradition of using icons, although it is not as common anymore. I read a great article that was written by a Sothern Baptist pastor about the beauty of icons and sacred art and the need for them in their churches. I'll see if I can find the article and attach it.
What was taught by the early Church and continues to be taught to this day is my answer. That may not be a sufficient answer for someone from a Western Christian tradition, whether it be Roman Catholic or non-Catholic Christians, but it is the mindset of Eastern Christians. What is taught about the Nativity of Christ, His baptism, His Transfiguration, Mary, etc., etc., is shown in the hymns of the Church and the icons of these events. We as Orthodox understand these to be true and what was handed down.
I am enjoying our conversation. I am sure we disagree on some of the issues that we are discussing and I hope that it is fruitful and done with Christian charity on my part as it definitely has been shown by you.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt
Well-known member
But, "the continuous living memory" isn't necessarily a "for sure" thing. That's my question. Yes, the early church didn't have all of Scripture while it was being written and distributed. Yes, persecution and the like restricted general distribution of all the books. But notice, I'm not throwing out Church authority or oral transmission altogether. I'm asking about certainty. When a church got a letter from Paul, or heard a sermon from Bartholomew, they had certainty, Apostolic Authority. When the Cretan hear things from Titus he got from Paul, they knew it was certain via apostolic authority. But give it 150 years, Irenaeus was teaching by "Apostolic Authority" that Jesus was over 50 years old when he died. Irenaeus was clearly wrong at this point while rightly recognized as a Church Father in both the east and west. So while continuous living memory can be a good thing, where is the certainty?
And, why sould anyone think such Traditions, outside of Scripture, were perfectly preserved when history tells a different story? For example, we have different, contradictory traditions taught concurrently in different parts of the church on which deuterocanonical books should be recognized as Scripture. We have different, contradictory traditions taught concurrently in different parts of the church on cousins, step brothers, and Mary had other kids. We have different, contradictory traditions, with ecumenical councils backing them, for and against Icon usage. How do we know which is "What was taught by the early Church and continues to be taught to this day." when they were all taught in the early church and are continuing to be taught today? I know this is a cultural difference between my western mindset and an eastern one, but can you at least see where I'm coming from? "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. Tradition is great, helpful, deep, meaningful. But, there is no promise of certainty with Tradition. And, that leads to my question: How can we know for sure that one position is correct, outside of those things taught in Scripture?
BTW, faith/trust in your Church is a valid answer for this question. I was just wondering if you had something else?
I find you to be quite charitable. Hopefully, my debate style isn't too off putting. It's hard for me not to be blunt and direct. I feel disrespected when people are not direct with me, and I wish to treat people with respect. But then, people get offended by my bluntness.
God Bless
PS: I hold to "In essentials, Unity; in none essentials, Liberity; and in all things, Charity." Those Trinitarian Christians trusting in Christ, following Christ, unified to Christ, purifying themself to be more Christlike, etc are my brother's in Christ irrespective of the name outside of the building in which they Worship God with Christ's church.
davbeh2010
Active member
Yes
From my perspective, the Orthodox membership today following the format given at the First Council of Nicaea, regarding the celebration of Pascha, is different than the format given to the ancient Orthodox Christian Church. (i.e. Saint Polycarp, bishop Polycrates, and the parishes of all Asia) (i.e. Reference: https://www.gci.org/articles/the-passover-easter-quartodeciman-controversy/) (i.e. Two different celebratory traditions "on earth", that are diametrically opposed to each other) One celebratory tradition is contradictory to the written Scriptures, and the other celebratory tradition does not contradict the written Scriptures. (i.e. John 4:24; 1 Corinthians 5:7; Colossians 3:8-11; 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21, etc., etc.)
Council of Nicaea -
[... "After the Council’s close, Emperor Constantine supported its judgment with a vile anti-Semitic attack against the Quartodecimans. He ordered a severe persecution of those who refused to comply."... See Reference above]
Where was the Christian charity?
In Messiah’s (Christ’s) service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo Gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
Last edited:
Sorry, let me take this in smaller bites-->why should we accept the decisions of the OE as to which writings are or are not considered on par with the Letters of Paul?
ziapueblo
Active member
We would would say yes, "the continuous living memory" of the Church is a "for sure" thing.
The early Fathers differed in certain areas, like your example about St Irenaeus. They by themselves are not infallible. However, by consensus the were on equal terms. St Irenaeus for example agrees with St Justin Martyr and others on what was believed about the Eucharist. St Irenaeus also taught similarly when it came to apostolic succession with other early Church Fathers such as St Clement of Rome, Tertullian, St Cyprian of Carthage and others.
I'm not saying when it comes to the Fathers everything is cut and dry. I does get messy on some issues but by consensus they are in agreement with theological issues such as the Eucharist and Apostolic Succession for example.
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.
When it comes to Christ and whether these brothers ( ἀδελφός), were step brothers, cousins or extended family is of no concern. The Greek word ἀδελφός is very broad in definition.
As to the use of icons, emperor Constantine V convened a council rejected religious images. Yet this was not a council that was represented by the 5 major Patriarchs of the time and was rejected by the 7th Ecumenical Council.
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.
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!
Have a blessed day!
ziapueblo
Active member
Thanks for your response. Before 1st Nicaea there were various ways in which the early Christians celebrated Pascha. The early Church just decided to create a universal date to celebrate the Lords Resurrections. Thanks for the link by the way. Looking forward to reading it.
ziapueblo
Active member
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.