Scripture and Tradition

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

I thought I would try to create a thread that would be helpful for newbies on the subject of scripture and tradition. Usually when people first start investigating Orthodoxy (esp. Protestants), as they learn of some of the Traditions of the Church they begin to ask things about how this relates to scripture, or whether Tradition ever conflicts with scripture. Well, I have some quotes which I thought might be helpful. This is from George Florovsky, who makes reference to the dictum of Vincent of Lerins:

"These two aspects of faith [Scripture and Tradition], or rather these two dimensions, could never be separated from each other. Universitas and antiquitas, as well as consensio, belonged together. Neither was it an adequate criterion by itself. Antiquity as such was not yet a sufficient warrant of truth, unless a comprehensive consensus of the ancients could be satisfactorily demonstrated. And consensio as such was not conclusive, unless it could be traced back continuously to apostolic origins. Now, suggested Vincent, the true faith could be recognized by a double recourse--to Scripture and tradition ("in two ways...first clearly by the authority of the Holy Scriptures, then by the tradition of the catholic church"). This did not imply, however, that there were two sources of Christian doctrine. Indeed, the rule or canon of Scripture was perfect and self-sufficient. Why then should it be supplimented by any other authority? Why was it imperitive to invoke also "the authority of ecclesiastical understanding?" The reason was obvious. Scripture was differently interpreted by individuals, "so that one might also gain the impression that it can yield as many different meanings as there are men." To this variety of private opinions Vincent opposes the common mind of the Church, the mind of the Church catholic "so that the trend of the interpretation of the prophets and apostolic writings be directed in accordance with the rule of the ecclesiastical and catholic meaning." Traditions was not, according to Vincent, an independent instance, nor was it a complementary source of faith. Ecclesiastical understanding could not add anything to the Scripture. But it was the only means to ascertain and to disclose the true meaning of Scripture. Tradition was, in fact, the authentic interpretation of Scripture. And in this sense it was coexistive with Scripture. Tradition was actually Scripture rightly understood. And Scripture was for Vincent [as well as the ancient Church] the only, primary and ultimate, canon of Christian truth."

"Scripture belonged to the Church, and it was only in the Church, within the community of faith, that Scripture could be adequately understood and correctly interpreted. Heretics, that is, those outside of the Church, had no key to the mind of Scripture. It was not enough just to read and to quote scriptural words; the true meaning or intent of Scripture, taken as an integrated whole, had to be elicited. One had to grasp in advance the true pattern of biblical revelation, the great design of God's redemptive providence, and this could be done only by an insight of faith....But this faith was not an arbitrary and subjective insight of individuals--it was the faith of the Church, rooted in the apostolic message or kerygma, and authenticated by it. Those outside of the Church were missing precisely this basic and overarching message, the very heart of the gospel. With them Scripture was just a dead letter, or an array of disconnected passages and stories which they endeavored to arrange or rearrange according to their own pattern derived from alien sources."

Here is a really good analogy from Irenaeus about Sciptural interpretation outside the Church: "A skillful artist has used many precious jewels in making a beautiful image of a king. Now another man takes this mosaic apart, rearranging the stones so as to produce the image of a dog or a fox. Then he starts claiming, on the pretext that the gems are authentic, that this is the original picture by the first master. In fact, however, the original design has been destroyed. This is what heretics do with the Scripture. They disregard and disrupt the order and connection of the Holy Writ and dismember the truth. Words, expressions, and images are genuine; but the design is arbitrary and false."

This thread will be a work in progress. Many of you (okay, most of you ;) ) are much better in history and theology than I. Please contribute what you can. I think this could be very helpful for people who are struggling with the relationship of Scripture and Tradition.

PS: Can someone provide a little background info. as to who Vincent of Lerins was? Florovsky did not go into any personal details about him.

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Thanks to Rob, a.k.a. "the Googlemiester", I have some factoids on St. Vincent. He is a pre-schism saint, so this quote comes from an RC website:

<H1>St. Vincent of Lérins

Feast on 24 May, an ecclesiastical writer in Southern Gaul in the fifth century. His work is much better known than his life. Almost all our information concerning him is contained in Gennadius, "De viris illustribus" (lxiv). He entered the monastery of Lérins (today Isle St. Honorat), where under the pseudonym of Peregrinus he wrote his "Commonitorium" (434). He died before 450, and probably shortly after 434. St. Eucherius of Lyons calls him a holy man, conspicuous for eloquence and knowledge; there is no reliable authority for identifying Vincent with Marius Mercator, but it is likely, if not certain, that he is the writer against whom Prosper, St. Augustine's friend, directs his "Responsiones ad capitula objectionum Vincentianarum". He was a Semipelagian and so opposed to the doctrine of St. Augustine. It is believed now that he uses against Augustine his great principle: "what all men have at all times and everywhere believed must be regarded as true". Living in a centre deeply imbued with Semipelagianism, Vincent's writings show several points of doctrine akin to Casian or to Faustus of Riez, who became Abbot of Lérins at the time Vincent wrote his "Commonitorium"; he uses technical expressions similar to those employed by the Semipelagians against Augustine; but, as Benedict XIV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02432a.htm) observes, that happened before the controversy was decided by the Church. The "Commonitorium" is Vincent's only certainly authentic work extant. The "Objectiones Vincentianae" are known to us only through Prosper's refutation. It seems probable that he collaborated, or at least inspired, the "Objectiones Gallorum", against which also Prosper writes his book. The work against Photinus, Apollinaris, Nestorius, etc., which he intended to compose (Commonitorium, xvi), has not been discovered, if it was ever written. The "Commonitorium", destined to help the author's memory and thus guide him in his belief according to the traditions of the Fathers, was intended to comprise two different commonitoria, the second of which no longer exists, except in the résumé at the end of the first, made by its author; Vincent complains that it had been stolen from him. Neither Gennadius, who wrote about 467-80, nor any known manuscripts, enable us to find any trace of it.

</H1>

[Reader Nilus]

http://s88610834.onlinehome.us/Orthodox/vincent.jpg

The COMMONITORY of St Vincent of Lerins (http://s88610834.onlinehome.us/Orthodox/lerins.html)
Reader Nilus

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Thanks, Jeff! :thumbsup:

[Rick of Wessex]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta again. :sigh:

Rick

[ExOrienteLux]

Covered, Rick!

[Rick of Wessex]

Buíochas*, Josh! :thumbsup:

Rick

* Irish Gaelic for "thanks"

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Thanks, guys! :hug:

After I get back from my classes this afternoon, I will post a few more tidbits.:)

[countrymousenc]

We need for this to be a sticky (or else I'll be bumping it all the time!)

The crucial statement: This did not imply, however, that there were two sources of Christian doctrine. Indeed, the rule or canon of Scripture was perfect and self-sufficient. Why then should it be supplimented by any other authority? Why was it imperitive to invoke also "the authority of ecclesiastical understanding?" The reason was obvious. Scripture was differently interpreted by individuals, "so that one might also gain the impression that it can yield as many different meanings as there are men." More than one of the Fathers wrote that the Scriptures are sufficient, but that Tradition is also necessary, for the same reason. Protestants tend to think (because we often tend to make mistakes when we debate the matter) that we believe the Scriptures don't cover the essentials. But that's not what the Fathers said.

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

We need for this to be a sticky (or else I'll be bumping it all the time!)

The crucial statement: More than one of the Fathers wrote that the Scriptures are sufficient, but that Tradition is also necessary, for the same reason. Protestants tend to think (because we often tend to make mistakes when we debate the matter) that we believe the Scriptures don't cover the essentials. But that's not what the Fathers said.
Yes! And actually, the Scriptures without Tradition are merely words, stories, and poetry open for any and all interpretations from individuals. Scripture is only inerrant as expressed through the Tradition of the Church.

[seeking.IAM]

I've been reading "Common Ground..." and it has been a very good help to this Protestant to understand Orthodoxy and the eastern church's view of tradition and scripture.

I don't mean to hijack this thread but can someone help me understand the meaning behind the act of sweeping one's hand to touch the ground. I suppose that would be a little "t" tradition of Orthodoxy.

seeking.IAM
<><

[Reader Nilus]

Bible, Church and Tradition: an Eastern Orthodox View by Fr Georges Florovsky (http://pages.sbcglobal.net/c.parks/florovsky.html)
That book is excellent and it is online. Fr Georges Florovsky was a 20th century Orthodox theologian.
Reader Nilus

[Oblio]

I don't mean to hijack this thread but can someone help me understand the meaning behind the act of sweeping one's hand to touch the ground. I suppose that would be a little "t" tradition of Orthodoxy.


To affirm that:

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven ...and became man

[seeking.IAM]

To affirm that:

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven ...and became man

Oblio, Happy Birthday :clap: Oblio are you saying that the symbolism of touching the ground is that God became man and came to earth? I'm a little dense about these things.

seeking.IAM
<><

[gzt]

I heard it's simply a holdover from Roman court ritual: it's how one bows to meet a king or something. One is still supposed to meet bishops by bowing to touch the ground and then asking their blessing, and, depending where you are, priests and monks, too. I could be wrong about its being a holdover, but it's definitely a matter of respect and humility.

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

"The appeal to tradition was actually an appeal to the mind of the church. It was assumed that the church had the knowledge and the understanding of the truth, that is, the meaning of the revelation. Accordingly, the church had both the competence and the authority to proclaim the gospel and to interpret it. This did not imply that the church was above the Scripture. She stood by the Scripture but, on the other hand, was not bound by it's letter. The unltimate purpose of exegesis and interpretation was to elicit the meaning and the intent of the Holy Writ, or rather the meaning of the revelation, of the Heilsgeschichte. The church had to preach Christ, and not just Scripture. The use of tradition in the ancient church can be adequately understood only in the context of the actual use of Scripture. The Word was kept alive in the church. It was reflected in her life and structure. Faith and life were organically intertwined."

"'Faith' found its first expression precisely in the liturgical--sacramental rites and formulas--and creeds first emerged as an integral part of the rite of initiation. Liturgy, in the wide and comprehensive sense of the word, was the first and initial layer in the tradition of the church, and the argument from the lex orandi (rule of worship) was persistently used in discussion already by the end of the second century. The worship of the church was a solemn proclaimation of her faith." "The New Testament itself came into existence, as a Scripture, in the worshipping church. And Scripture was first read in the context of worship and meditation."

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

"Here is what Saint Cyril of Alexandria writes: "Christ, having taken as an example and image of that indivisible love, accord and unity which is conceivable only in unanimity, the unity of essence which the Father has with Him and which He, in turn, has with His Father, desires that we too should unite with each other; evidently in the same way as the consubstantial, Holy Trinity is united so that the whole body of the Church is conceived of as one, ascending in Christ through the fusion and union of two people into the composition of the new perfect whole. The image of Divine unity and the consubstantial nature of the Holy Trinity as a most perfect interpenetration must be reflected in the unity of the believers who are of one heart and mind." Saint Cyril also points out "the natural unity by which we are all bound together, and all of us to God, cannot exist without bodily unity."

All the earthly works of Christ, therefore, must not be thought of as teaching alone. Christ did not come to earth to announce some novel theoretical propositions to mankind. No! He came in order to create a completely new life for mankind, that is, the Church. Christ Himself said that He would build the Church (cf. Matt. 16:18).

This new human community, according to the conception of the Creator Himself, differs vitally from all other associations of people into various societies. Christ Himself often referred to His Church as the Kingdom of God and said that this Kingdom is not of the world, that is, its nature is not of the world, not temporal; it is not comparable with earthly kingdoms (cf. John 14:27; 15:19; 17:14-16; 18:36).

The idea of the Church as a new, perfect community as distinct from a community of the state organization is profoundly and beautifully expressed in the kontakion for the feast of the Descent of the Holy Spirit, when the Church recalls and celebrates its beginning. "When the Most High came down and confused the tongues, He divided the nations, but when He distributed the tongues of fire, He called all into unity. Therefore, with one accord we glorify the All-holy Spirit." Here the creation of the Church is placed into opposition to the Tower of Babel and the "confusing of tongues," at which time God, the Most High, came down, confused the tongues and divided the nations."
(Archbishop Troitsky)

[countrymousenc]

*bump* (somebody sticky this thread!!!)

[ExOrienteLux]

*bump* (somebody sticky this thread!!!)
I second this! Suzannah, Oblio, somebody please sticky this!

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

I've always wondered how threads become "sticky". Do you have to be a moderator to do it? I had hoped someone would sticky the Divine Liturgy one, too.

[Suzannah]

I second this! Suzannah, Oblio, somebody please sticky this!
:)

Done!

Excellent job btw on this research...

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Thanks! :clap: I just thought that this is a subject that comes up often when people first inquire about Orthodoxy. I hope this might help somebody.:pray:

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

This is from the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. [a.d. 30-100.] St. Clement was probably a Gentile and a Roman. He seems to have been at Philippi with St. Paul (a.d. 57) when that first-born of the Western churches was passing through great trials of faith. There, with holy women and others, he ministered to the apostle and to the saints.

"The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from(4) the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so from(4) God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments,(5) then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established(6) in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit,(7) to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture(8) a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons(9) in faith."(10)"

"Let Us Preserve In The Church The Order Appointed By God.


These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behoves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times.(1) He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him.(2) Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen."

[The Virginian]

This may, or may not, answer the question asked by GZT as to what the meaning is behind sweeping one's hand to the ground when bowing.
The form of the Divine Liturgy has forever been influenced, by the worship of the Jewish Temple, and practices (traditions) of the Jewish religious life. Whenever you read the Old Testament and come across where a worshipper of God fell down before The Presence, they were in humility prostrating themself before God. A proud Israelite just didn't prostrate himself before just anybody.
The metania therefore has the meaning of recognizing the one before you, your own condition, and responding to that, humbly prostrating/bowing yourself on/to the ground.
This is, as best as I can remember, the meaning behind the "tradition" of bowing from the waist, while the hand makes a sweeping motion to the ground.



the sinful and unworthy servant

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

"The situation [dealing with heresy] did not change in the fourth century. The dispute with the Arians, at least in it's early phase, was centered in the exegetical [interpretation] field. The Arians and their supporters produced an impressive array of scriptural texts in the defense of their doctrinal position. They wanted to restrict theological discussion to the biblical ground alone. Their claims had to be met precisely on this ground. And their exegetical method, the manner in which they handled the text, was much the same as that of the earlier dissenters. They were operating with selected proof-texts and without much concern for the total context of the revelation.

It was imperative for the Orthodox to appeal to the mind of the church, to that faith which had been once delivered and then devoutly kept. This was the main concern and the usual method of Athanasius. The Arians quoted various passages from the Scripture to substantiate their contention that the Savior was a creature. In reply Athanasius invoked the rule of faith. This was his usual argument:"Let us who possess the scope of faith restore the correct meaning of what they have wrongly interpreted." Athanasius contended that the correct interpretation of particular texts was possible only in the total perspective of faith. "What they now allege from the Gospels they explain in an unsound sense, as we may discover if we take in consideration the scope of faith according to us Christians, and read the Scripture using it as the rule." On the other hand, close attention must be given also to the immediate context and setting of every particular phrase and expression, and the exact intention of the writer must be carefully identified."

If anyone is not familiar with the Arian heresy, you will find a basic definition here: http://www.carm.org/heresy/arianism.htm

PS: Isn't it amazing that the way heresy is defended (with scriptures taken out of context) has not changed in the last 1600+ yrs.???

[Reader Nilus]

A great thread thanks to Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta who started it.
Reader Nilus

[Yeznik]

Here is a part of an article that I have written,

In Timothy 2:15



But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.



In Scripture, it is already established that the church is the pillar of truth. And we know from history that the church, which is founded by Christ through his apostles, pre-dates the bible. And, that the apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, wrote, taught and established churches all over the world. These teachings of the apostles were entrusted to the churches which they established. A serious look must be taken into what the apostles taught, because according to Scripture in 2 Thess 2:15 is written –



“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”



And 2 Thess 3:6



“Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”



John 21:25

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.



So, not only does the church have the Sacred Scriptures but also the Holy Traditions which were handed down to us by Christ through His apostles. These traditions are not to be confused by the traditions of men as the clear example given in.



Col 2:8

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”



These traditions are clearly not from Christ or His apostles. The traditions of men have already been defined by the Apostles so not to get confused with Holy Tradition. These traditions of men have been in many cases have been misunderstood for Holy Tradition.

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Thanks, Yeznik! :thumbsup:

[Montalban]

I began to read "Scripture in Tradition: The Bible and Its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church" but this is a difficult read; being full of terms I've not heard before. But one thing stated was that Orthodoxy has 'scripture in tradition' whereas the Catholic church as 'scripture and tradition' (akin to two separate pillars).

Although this might be better posted on the Orthodox book club, I'd not recommend this book, but rather another one "The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church (Faith Catechism)"

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

I began to read "Scripture in Tradition: The Bible and Its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church" but this is a difficult read; being full of terms I've not heard before. But one thing stated was that Orthodoxy has 'scripture in tradition' whereas the Catholic church as 'scripture and tradition' (akin to two separate pillars).

Although this might be better posted on the Orthodox book club, I'd not recommend this book, but rather another one "The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church (Faith Catechism)"
Thanks for your input, Montalban! :wave:

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

St. Basil and “Unwritten Tradition”

Already St. Irenaeus used to refer to "faith" as it had been received at baptism. Liturgical arguments were used by Tertullian and St. Cyprian [See Federer, op. cit., s. 59 ff.; F. De Pauw, La justification des traditions non écrites chèz Tertullien, in ‘Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses,’ t. XIX, 1/2, 1942, pp. 5-46. Cf. also Georg Kretschmar, Studien zur frühchristlichen Trinitätstheologie (Tübingen, 1956)]. St. Athanasius and the Cappadocians used the same argument. The full development of this argument from the liturgical tradition we find in St. Basil. In his contest with the later Arians, concerning the Holy Spirit, St. Basil built his major argument on the analysis of doxologies, as they were used in the Churches. The treatise of St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, was an occasional tract, written in the fire and heat of a desperate struggle, and addressed to a particular historic situation. But St. Basil was concerned here with the principles and methods of theological investigation. In his treatise St. Basil was arguing a particular point — indeed, the crucial point in the sound Trinitarian doctrine — the homotimia of the Holy Ghost. His main reference was to a liturgical witness: the doxology of a definite type ("with the Spirit"), which, as he could demonstrate, has been widely used in the Churches. The phrase, of course, was not in the Scripture. It was only attested by tradition. But his opponents would not admit any authority but that of the Scripture. It is in this situation that St. Basil endeavored to prove the legitimacy of an appeal to Tradition. He wanted to show that the omotimia (ομοτιμια) of the Spirit, that is, his Divinity, was always believed in the Church and was a part of the Baptismal profession of faith. Indeed, as Père Benoit Pruche has rightly observed, the omotimos (ομοτιμιος), was for St. Basil an equivalent of the omousios (ομοουσιος) [See his introduction to the edition of the treatise De Spiritu Sancto in ‘Sources Chrètiennes,’ (Paris, 1945), pp. 28 ss]. There was little new in this concept of Tradition, except consistency and precision.

His phrasing, however, was rather peculiar. "Of the dogmata and kerygmata, which are kept in the Church, we have some from the written teaching (εκ της εγγραφου διδασκαλιας), and some we derive from the Apostolic paradosis, which had been handed down en mistirio (εν μυστηριω). And both have the same strength (την αυτην ισχυν) in the matters of piety" (de Spir. S., 66). At first glance one may get the impression that St. Basil introduces here a double authority and double standard — Scripture and Tradition. In fact he was very far from doing so. His use of terms is peculiar. Kerygmata were for him what in the later idiom was usually denoted as "dogmas" or "doctrines" — a formal and authoritative teaching and ruling in the matters of faith, the open or public teaching. On the other hand, dogmata were for him the total complex of "unwritten habits" (τα αγραφα των εθνων), or, in fact, the whole structure of liturgical and sacramental life. It must be kept in mind that the concept, and the term itself, "dogma," was not yet fixed by that time, it was not yet a term with a strict and exact connotation [See the valuable study by August Deneffe, S.J., Dogma. Wort und Begriff, in the ‘Scholastik,’ Jg. VI (1931), ss. 381-400 and 505-538]. In any case, one should not be embarrassed by the contention of St. Basil that dogmata were delivered or handed down, by the Apostles en mistirio (εν μυστρηω). It would be a flagrant mistranslation if we render it as "in secret." The only accurate rendering is: "by the way of mysteries," that is — under the form of rites and (liturgical) usages, or "habits." In fact, it is precisely what St. Basil says himself: τα πλειτα των μυστικων αγραφως ημιν εμπολιτευεται [Most of the mysteries are communicated to us by an unwritten way]. The term ta mistika (τα μυστικα)refers here, obviously, to the rites of Baptism and Eucharist, which are, for St. Basil, of "Apostolic" origin. He quotes at this point St. Paul’s own reference to "traditions," which the faithful have received (ειτε δια λογου ειτε δι επιστολης 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:2). The doxology in question is one of these "traditions" (71; cf. also 66) — οι τα περι τας Εκκλησιας εξαρχης διαθεσμοθετησαντες αποστολοι και πατερες, εν τω κεκρυμμενω και αφθεγκτω το σεμνον τοις μυστηριοις εφυλασσον [The Apostles and Fathers who from the very beginning arranged everything in the churches, preserved the sacred character of the mysteries in silence and secrecy]. Indeed, all instances quoted by St. Basil in this connection are of ritual or liturgical nature: the use of the sign of the Cross in the rite of admission of Catechumens; the orientation toward East at prayer; the habit to keep standing at worship on Sundays; the epiclesis in the Eucharistic rite; the blessing of water and oil, the renunciation of Satan and his pomp, the triple immersion, in the rite of Baptism. There are many other "unwritten mysteries of the Church," says St. Basil: τα αγραφα της εκκλησιας μυστηρια (c. 66 and 67). They are not mentioned in the Scripture. But they are of great authority and significance. They are indispensable for the preservation of right faith. They are effective means of witness and communication. According to St. Basil, they come from a "silent" and "private" tradition: απο της αδημοσιευτου και μυστικης παραδοσεως εκ της αδημοσιευτου ταυτης και απορρητου διδασκαλιας [From the silent and mystical tradition, from the unpublic and ineffable teaching]. This "silent" and "mystical" tradition, "which has not been made public," is not an esoteric doctrine, reserved for some particular elite. The "elite" was the Church. In fact, "tradition" to which St. Basil appeals, is the liturgical practice of the Church. St. Basil is referring here to what is now denoted as disciplina arcani [The discipline of secrecy]. In the fourth century this "discipline" was in wide use, was formally imposed and advocated in the Church. It was related to the institution of the Catechumenate and had primarily an educational and didactic purpose. On the other hand, as St. Basil says himself, certain "traditions" had to be kept "unwritten" in order to prevent profanation at the hands of the infidel. This remark obviously refers to rites and usages. It may be recalled at this point that, in the practice of the Fourth century, the Creed (and also the Dominical Prayer) were a part of this "discipline of secrecy" and could not be disclosed to the non-initiated. The Creed was reserved for the candidates for Baptism, at the last stage of their instruction, after they had been solemnly enrolled and approved. The Creed was communicated, or "traditioned," to them by the bishop orally and they had to recite it by memory before him: the ceremony of traditio and redditio symboli. [Transmission and Repetition (by the initiated) of the Creed]. The Catechumens were strongly urged not to divulge the Creed to outsiders and not to commit it to writing. It had to be inscribed in their hearts. It is enough to quote there the Procatechesis of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, cap 12 and 17. In the West Rufinus and St. Augustine felt that it was improper to set the Creed down on paper. For that reason Sozomen in his History does not quote the text of the Nicene Creed, "which only the initiated and the mystagogues have the right to recite and hear" (hist. eccl. 1.20) . It is against this background, and in this historic context, that the argument of St. Basil must be assessed and interpreted. St. Basil stresses strongly the importance of the Baptismal profession of faith, which included a formal commitment to the belief in the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (67 and 26). It was a "tradition" which had been handed down to the neophytes "in mystery" and had to be kept "in silence." One would be in great danger to shake "the very foundation of the Christian faith" — το στερεωμα της Χριστον πιστεως — if this "unwritten tradition" was set aside, ignored, or neglected (c. 25). The only difference between dogma (δογμα) and kirigma (κηρυγμα) was in the manner of their transmission: dogma is kept "in silence" and kerygmata are "publicized:" το μεν γαρ σιωπαται, τα δε κηρυγματα δημοσειυονται. But their intent is identical: they convey the same faith, if in different manners. Moreover, this particular habit was not just a tradition of the Fathers — such a tradition would not have sufficed: uk eksarki. In fact, "the Fathers" derived their "principles" from "the intention of the Scripture" — τω βουληματι της Γραφης λαβοντες [Following the intention of the Scripture, deriving their principles from the scriptural witnesses]. Thus, the "unwritten tradition," in rites and symbols, does not actually add anything to the content of the Scriptural faith: it only puts this faith in focus [Cf. Hermann Dörries, De Spiritu Sancto, Der Beitrag des Basilius zum Abschluss des trinitarischen Dogmas (Göttingen, 1956); J. A. Jungmann, S.J., Die Stellung Christi im liturgischen Gebet, 2. Auflage (Münster i/W, 1962), ss. 155 ff., 163 ff.; Dom David Amand, L’ascese monastique de Saint Basile, Editions de Maredsous (1949), pp. 75-85. The footnotes in the critical editions of the treatise De Spiritu S. by C. F. H. Johnson (Oxford, 1892) and by Benoit Pruche, O.P. (in the ‘Sources Chrètiennes,’ Paris, 1945) are highly instructive and helpful. On disciplina arcani see O. Perler, s.v. Arkandisciplin, in ‘Reallexikon für Antike and Christentum,’ Bd. I (Stuttgart, 1950), ss. 671-676,. Joachim Jeremias, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (Göttingen, 1949), ss. 59 ff., 78 ff., contended that disciplina arcani could be detected already in the formation of the text of the Gospels, and actually existed also in Judaism; cf. the sharp criticism of this thesis by R. P. C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church (London, 1962), pp. 27 ss].

Cont....

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

St. Basil’s appeal to "unwritten tradition" was actually an appeal to the faith of the Church, to her sensus catholicus, to the (φρονιμα εκκλησιατικον) fronima ekklisiatikon [Ecclesiastical mind]. He had to break the deadlock created by the obstinate and narrow-minded pseudo-biblicism of his Arian opponents. And he pleaded that, apart from this "unwritten" rule of faith, it was impossible to grasp the true intention and teaching of the Scripture itself. St. Basil was strictly scriptural in his theology: Scripture was for him the supreme criterion of doctrine (epist. 189.3). His exegesis was sober and reserved. Yet, Scripture itself was a mystery, a mystery of Divine "economy" and of human salvation. There was an inscrutable depth in the Scripture, since it was an "inspired" book, a book by the Spirit. For that reason the true exegesis must be also spiritual and prophetic. A gift of spiritual discernment was necessary for the right understanding of the Holy Word. "For the judge of the words ought to start with the same preparation as the author … And I see that in the utterances of the Spirit it is also impossible for everyone to undertake the scrutiny of His word, but only for them who have the Spirit which grants the discernment" (epist. 204). The Spirit is granted in the sacraments of the Church. Scripture must be read in the light of faith, and also in the community of the faithful. For that reason Tradition, the tradition of faith as handed down through generations, was for St. Basil an indispensable guide and companion in the study and interpretation of the Holy Writ. At this point he was following in the steps of St. Irenaeus and St. Athanasius. In the similar way Tradition, and especially the liturgical witness, of the Church was used by St. Augustine [Cf. German Mártil, O.D., La tradición en San Agustín a través de la controversia pelagiana (Madrid, 1942) (originally in ‘Revista española de Teología,’ Vol. I, 1940, and II, 1942); Wunibald Roetzer, Des heiligen Augustinus Schriften als liturgie-geschichtliche Quelle (München, 1930); see also the studies of Federer and Dom Capelle, as quoted above].

~Archpriest Florovsky, The Function of Tradtition in the Ancient Church.
*Bold font for emphasis is mine.:)

[lovemysoldier]

I am interested in learning about the Eastern Orthodox church. I have read this thread and researched a bit on the internet and I don't get it. I am trying, but all of the explanations are way to elloquent for me. Could someone please tell me what it is all about in a simple, easy to understand way?

From what I understand, you believe in the Divine Trinity, believe that fellowship with the church is important for spiritual growth and that is about all I was able to get.

[Prawnik]

Lovemysoldier:

We've had some threads on this subject. To start with read these:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1165192-i-have-many-questionsplease-help.html

http://www.christianforums.com/t1166964-the-difference-between-roman-catholicism-and-eastern-orthodoxy.html (Orthodoxy vs. Roman Catholicism)

Within those threads, there will be links to official sites, and hopefully some answers to questions you may be asking.

Feel free to ask any other questions you want, although most of us are just lay people, not Church hierarchy. And remember: the important thing with being Orthodox is not learning or engaging in discussions, what is important is to be Orthodox, to do.

This is how Orthodoxy is a faith that answers the needs of a professor of philosophy and an illiterate village woman at the same time.

[lovemysoldier]

I would like to know how the orthodox church views Mary and was wondering if someone could please explain it to me in simple English. I have read a few threads in this forum that touched up on this topic but the speech was to advanced for me and it just confused me.

[lovemysoldier]

more questions come to mind.....about confession.

Is there a procedure for confessing? I repent constantly in prayer to God. It has been a fruitful part of my relationship with God and was wondering the reason for a mediator being present during confession in the Orthodox religion.

[Orthosdoxa]

We love Mary. By her own free will, the Theotokos (Greek for "God-bearer", which is what we usually call her), bore the Saviour of the world. She is alive in heaven with God right now, praying for us Christians, and we often ask specific prayer requests of her, as well as of other saints.

We do NOT worship her, despite the tired claim of certain fundmentalists that we do. Nor do we worship anyone other than the Holy Trinity. But we do honor her as an example of purity and righteousness, and we love her, for she said "yes" to God and bore Christ Incarnate, our Saviour. She is the Mother of God! If we love Christ God, then we must love His Mother, too. The Bible proclaims that she is "blessed among women", and that all generations shall call her blessed.

I hope that helps.

Please feel free to ask whatever you want, and don't be afraid to ask us to break it down further. Some of this stuff is pretty "meaty", but hey, we all have to start with milk first. Please ask for a milkshake whenever you need one! :D

LK

[Orthosdoxa]

Because the Bible tells us to confess our sins to one another, that we may be healed. (James 5:16) Forgiveness is not just an individual thing. The Church is an organic whole, and our actions often resonate deeply into the lives of others. In the Early Church, everyone confessed to everyone, in front of the whole Church! Obviously, this was not practical for very long. So now we make our confession just in front of the priest, who represents the Church.

PS - there is also Old Testament precedent for it, ie, people helping others with their confessions and repentance - David and Nathan the Prophet, for example.

[lovemysoldier]

I am interested in reading more about Mary being lifted up to heaven in the bible. Could anyone please give me a starting point and some verses to study?

[lovemysoldier]

I would like to know if it is required that I only confess to the church? I feel that it would damage me spiritually if I had to wait.

[Orthosdoxa]

I am interested in reading more about Mary being lifted up to heaven in the bible. Could anyone please give me a starting point and some verses to study?
It's not in the Bible. We are not Sola Scriptura. :) For 1500 years, the Church relied on written Scriptures and what their forefathers handed down. Then Martin Luther decided that he knew better and began to insist on Scripture alone. But that is a very "new" idea, and not one even found in the Bible itself, which tells us to hold fast to the Traditions that the Apostles handed down. (II Thess 2:15)

[lovemysoldier]

Are there orthodox churches that do not pray to Mary and do not embrace this teaching?

I am saddened that I found this thread so late in the evening. It is past midnight and my boys will be up and about in a few hours and I must go to bed. I look forward to reading your posts in the morning.

[Marjorie]

I would like to know if it is required that I only confess to the church? I feel that it would damage me spiritually if I had to wait.Oh no, you don't only confess to the Church. You confess to all your brothers and sisters, and you confess to God. The sacrament of confession is the means by which we most perfectly confess to God and our brethren (represented by the priest) and receive absolution, but of course, we are to confess continually.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Marjorie]

Just a note-- we don't really "pray to Mary" per se. We ask her to pray for us, just as you might ask me to pray for you. The reason that she above all is asked for prayers is that she is the "icon of the Church" and the image of what we shall become (in other words, she is the representation of all Christians, who must approach God in our fallen poverty surrendering ourselves: "Behold the handmaid-- or servant-- of the Lord: let it be done to me according to your word.")

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

I am interested in reading more about Mary being lifted up to heaven in the bible. Could anyone please give me a starting point and some verses to study?
Hi, Lovemysoldier!:wave: This question fits right into the theme of this thread. Much of what the Church teaches on Mary is found in the Tradition of the Church. What is Tradition? Both written (scripture) and oral imputation of how God has revealed Himself to His Church. Teachings about Mary are mostly from oral based tradition, meaning they are not found in the Bible. The Orthodox Church is not what you'd call "sola scriptura", meaning we do not rely only on the written tradition (Bible). There actually is at least one Bible verse that addresses the importance of keeping the oral traditions along with written, and handing them down. I'll have to go look it up.:)

RE: Confession. No, you do not have to wait to do a formal confession with a priest to repent. Orthodoxy is ALL ABOUT having an intense prayer life. We can cofess our sins in our personal prayer time, but it brings even more healing to confess them before a priest and receive absolution. Confession brings healing. Repentence is sometimes called the baptism of tears because our soul is cleansed. Can repentence only happen if you've confessed to a priest? Well, not necessarily, but it is certainly more likely to happen when you are accountable to the Church for your actions. We believe that sin does not just affect ourselves, but the entire Body. Prayer and Communion with God and our fellow brethren are very ingrained into the life of the Church. Now, can God forgive us if we confess at home (not in the presence of a priest)? Well, God is not limited to the confines of our parish, so of course He can. However, we cannot skip or overlook the importance of the sacrament of Confession. Again, it brings both healing and accountiblity into our relationship with God. We are not really confessing to our priest, we our confessing to God in the presence of a priest, who represents Christ.

I hope I haven't lost you. I'm not very good at explaining things. Please feel free to ask for clarification.:)

[Marjorie]

BTW Kat I, like, NEVER can rep you! (Same goes for Tracy.)

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[The Virginian]

LoveMysoldier

Your name implies that you are either the mate of, or the parentof someone in the military. GOD BLESS YOU!

One of your questions was about the Virgin Mary, her assumption (transportation) into heaven, and where you could read about it. As others have pointed out, that particular event is not in the pages of the Canon of the Bible; however it can be found within the pages what the Church knows as The Proto-evangelism of James. GDE I believe, has already posted about Tradition, and sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), so you know that the Orthodox cherish written records more than just the 60+ books of the Protestant Bible.

You also asked about Confession; and in particular, confession to the Church. There's a special season of the Church year called Great Lent, which lasts for forty days. One Sunday in that time frame is called Frogiveness Sunday. Those in the congregation literally ask forgiveness of all present; this is the cnngregational scale of what Our Lord commands on the personal/ individual level, "Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift". (Matt.5:23,24)
This command of confession (which someone else has referenced) the Apostle James links to personal life, wherein the Church derives the mystery/sacrament of Confession. So, you see, confession covers the personal life(your relationship with God), the Church life , and your social life.
First and foremost, we confess to God Almighty; it is then a matter of humbly submitting ourselves to the disciplines of God commands, and the Church authorities. As Anonykat has said, "our actions often resonate deeply into the lives of others". We are a body, the community of the faithful.
Although we were received into Orthodoxy a few years ago, my wife and I are trying to get to the point where our lives revolve around the Church year, and not around the 4H or the Home School Group schedule. Making such a switch is also very important for spiritual growth, and having an Orthodox mindset, as you've noted.



asaus

[The Virginian]

HHMMMM!!!

There is in Orthodox tradition, a writing known as the "Proto-Evangelism of James." As you've guessed, this 'book', is not within the pages of the Bible. I'm not aware of whether or not this is the only non-biblical text, which goes into detail about the "Dormition of The Theotokos.

RE: CONFESSION . Grand_Duchess' post #45 above without saying so, poses the question: Well, if true repentence can happen, without going to the priest for confession, why do I need to go at all? That's simple! (sorry I tend to do that a lot). Confession is one of those matters which the Church calls a sacrament, or in Orthodoxy, a 'mystery'. Which lets you know, that not everything can be satisfactorily explained. The Sacraments are rites/ceremonies established within the Church by Jesus, through which the grace and mercy of God are made real to us sinners. That being said, it's easier to see that which was posted earlier, the purpose of confession, is to bring healing. Seguay to; why go at all?

this ties into what someone said -probably in another thread- that our actions "...resonate deep into the lives of others." The Apostle Paul wrote it this way to the Corinthians: "...Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our afflictions, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God...." None of us live in isolation, and especially as the Church, the body of Christ we live in communion with one another, so that if one member suffers, we all suffer. And, if one rejoices we all rejoice. We take the 'healing' we receive in the confessional out into every area of our being; and so, we live sacramentally.

Clear as mud?



asaus

[Hunter3000]

As for Holy Confession are we forgetting what the Scripture says of it?

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (John 20:19-23)

Yes, we confess to the Holy Spirit, but through the Priest.

[postodave]

As far as I can make out this is exactly what I believe as a protestant anyway.

[ProScribe]

Covered this topic in this thread:http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7244350

[ProScribe]

PS: Can someone provide a little background info. as to who Vincent of Lerins was? Florovsky did not go into any personal details about him.

St. Vicent of Lerins is an ECF A.D 450 of the Patristic age.
[quote][20,25] 2172 He is a true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, the Church, and the Body of Christ; who puts nothing else before divine religion and the Catholic Faith, neither the authority nor the love nor the genius nor the eloquence nor the philosophy of any man whatsoever, but despising all that and being fixed, stable, and persevering in his faith, is determined in himself to hold and believe that only which he knows the Catholic Church has held universally from ancient times.source:Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky
[The truths of faith which are contained in Sacred Scripture and the Apostolic Sacred Tradition give the fullness of the teaching of faith which was called by the ancient Fathers of the Church the "catholic faith", the "catholic teaching" of the Church] pg.31

[JeremiahsBulldog]

Virginian.

That was informative. Thanks.

[JeremiahsBulldog]

LovemySoldier,

God Bless your soldier.