Scripture and Tradition

[Suzannah]

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

Done!

Excellent job btw on this research...

 

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

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

 

[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!

 

[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!

 

[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!

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.