On Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition

Orthodox Advices ^ | 1981 | Elder Cleopa of Romania

[NYer]

Holy Scripture is like a very deep well wherein is comprised the infinite wisdom of God. If someone thirsty dives into this well to drink of all its water, he will be drowned within. If, however, he will fetch the water with a bucket and from there will drink with a cup, then there is no fear of being engulfed.

This is truly an awesome analogy. Who can ever know God?

[Salvation]

LOL! because you drew circles. Simple?

[Salvation]

No, Holy Tradition is not equal to Holy Scripture.

Even the Apostle, John, in the last verses of his Gospel, says that not everything is recorded in the Bible.

S0--Tradition was there before the Bible was written down.

[Ottofire]

Please give me you impression of my argument, and afterwards I will look at the sufficiency of yours. A debate requires the inspection of both sides.

Otherwise it can be dueling scriptures for a few weeks, where both sides refuse to actually comment on the opponents side, and there is no thought, just copy and paste theology, and that gets no one anywhere.

I WANT to hear your answer to my question, as it may bring insight to my knowledge of God. I have little contact with the mysterious Orthodox Church and do not fear hearing what you have to say.

[Ottofire]

John 21:25 (New American Standard Bible)

25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

I understand that Jesus' entire life is not put in the scriptures. Not an argument there, but I would argue that only that needed for Salvation are in the Scriptures, and some that might confuse the faithful is not.

Many Mysteries are not revealed, hence the Mystery part. The Latins, the Greeks and the Reformed agree with that. Just what is revealed is the problem.

[Gamecock]

Nah, I lifted it from another site.

[Kolokotronis]

"Tradition is equal to Scripture. The reason? Tradition."

The Church has never said that, G. But you as a Protestant educated in the history of The Faith know that it was indeed Holy Tradition which was the yardstick by which the various claimants to canonical status among the many "scriptures" available in the first two or three centuries of The Church were measured for inclusion in the canon. What The Church, East and West, has said is that it is The Church which is the keeper of Holy Tradition, not you or me individually. Holy Tradition is made up of many things, the consensus patrum and the writings of individual Fathers when they are in accord with the consensus patrum, liturgical practices, various prayers and devotions, in sum, what The Church always and everywhere believed. This Holy Tradition is the living embodiment of The Truth about our Salvation through Christ. It is precisely because what you read as the scriptures is completely and absolutely in accordance with this Holy Tradition that The Church established the canon of scripture in the late 4th century and you can know (well, with the exception of Luther's fooling around with the canon)that what you are reading is The Truth. But the NT and the OT alone, in a void, are not obviously self-authenticating. And yet we know they are because The Church told us so 1700 years ago, long before anyone had ever heard of Luther and the other reformers. Any other understanding of the "authenticity" of the scriptures tends to wander off into Mohammedanism.

"Of course it falls apart when you consider that EO and RCs both cling to tradition, yet each considers the other schismatic. Whose tradition is right?"

I think you misunderstand the nature of The Schism. It has very little, if anything, to do with the Holy Tradition we are speaking of here. The nearest it comes to an issue of Holy Tradition lies in a few points within the consensus Patrum and, here's the big one, Papal Supremacy, which we Orthodox of course reject, especially its claims to infallibility and universal jurisdiction, but we would argue that these are extra-patristic innovations born of post hoc propter hoc reasoning and political conditions. The Latins of course disagree...but this has absolutely nothing to do with any notion that random individual Christians, as simply Christians, have either the ability or the authority to establish what the scriptures mean.

[Gamecock]

So answer my question about the schism between the EO and the RCs and who has the "pure" tradition.

[NYer]

Tradition is equal to Scripture.

If you accept the teachings recorded in the Bible, then you also accept Tradition. In Matt. 2:23, for example, the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition. Again, in 1 Cor. 10:4, Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

In Mark 3:14; 16:15, Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn't He have said a word about it?

EO and RCs both cling to tradition, yet each considers the other schismatic.

The Orthodox and Catholic Churches are separated; neither views the other to be in schism.

[Salvation]

I can't answer that -- and you know it. LOL! I am not the final judge. God will be.

[annalex]

The Catholic church says it has sole authority to interpret scripture, then proceeds to interpret scripture to say that it has the sole authority to interpret scripture.

This is a perceived circular argument due to the often misconstrued notions that Scripture is separate from Tradition. The mistake is presumed in this question:

the Holy Tradition that the Orthodox consider to be the second source of Holy Revelation and coequal with Holy Scripture

In fact, there is no circularity because Scripture is a subset of Tradition, and Tradition is "faith once delivered to the saints", i.e. the Church. We do not need to look for the authority of the Church in the scripture in order to justify the authority, -- although of course, if we were to look we would find it. Passages such as Matthew 18:17-18 to do not constitute a basis of the authority of the Church, but rather an evidence of that authority.

***

I'll be back Monday to respond to all posts to me, at this point I only have time to correct this possible misconception of what the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches teach (with one voice on this subject and on most other subjects).

[spunkets]

"Who can ever know God?"

Anyone who seeks, else He never would have made the promise.

[Kolokotronis]

"I would argue that only that needed for Salvation are in the Scriptures,...."

Agreed 100%

"...and some that might confuse the faithful is not."

I don't doubt for a moment that this is true, but I would go on to say that much of what actually is in the canon of scripture is likewise confusing. Clearly this is true since, as Protestants would have it, the entire Church was in error for 1500 years before the Reformation; indeed, in error from the earliest post Resurrection, non scriptural writings like those of +Clement of Rome and +Ignatius of Antioch. I don;t accept that, but I do readily admit that rivers of blood have been spilled in the West since the Reformation over what the Bible means.

"Many Mysteries are not revealed, hence the Mystery part. The Latins, the Greeks and the Reformed agree with that. Just what is revealed is the problem."

Well, certainly Orthodoxy doesn't claim to have all the answers. For example, in the East we have no doubt that theosis comes through Christ and that Christ comes to us through The Church and Her Mysteries. But we have no idea wither the Spirit goes so we cannot say that outside The Church there is no salvation (unlike, I think, both the Romans and the Protestants) Mysteries are indeed Mysteries and in the East we are just fine with that.

[Ottofire]

Am I correct in saying the Orthodox do not hold to many of the RC Marian doctrines and purgatory, as well as in the Eucharist, the host and wine become 'grace filled', rather than transubstantiated into the actual blood and flesh of Christ?

[Kolokotronis]

"Am I correct in saying the Orthodox do not hold to many of the RC Marian doctrines and purgatory, as well as in the Eucharist, the host and wine become 'grace filled', rather than transubstantiated into the actual blood and flesh of Christ?"

Orthodoxy does not accept the Latin concept of purgatory, nor do we accept the Latin dogma of the Immaculate Conception (Otto, this is a very, very complex theological subject). I am not sure what other Marian doctrines you might be referring to. We absolutely believe that the bread and wine consecrated at the Divine Liturgy, through the actions of the Holy Spirit, do indeed become the actual Body and Blood of Christ. It is, however, a Mystery to us and therefore we do not attempt to explain it nor do we use the word "transubstantiation".

[Gamecock]

neither views the other to be in schism.

So whose tradition is correct?

[Ottofire]

Thank you for witnessing to your faith.

If I offended in my questions, which you did not mention, but if I did, I apologize.

[Kolokotronis]

"If I offended in my questions, which you did not mention, but if I did, I apologize."

You didn't offend me in the least, Otto! :)

[Ottofire]

Please, lets refrain from large and bold fonts. For Peter I am sure would want us to keep to the regular fonts as it easier to read, and as he says in:

2 Peter:3 15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

Light not heat, GC.

They each claim their traditions are correct. That is why there is a schism in the first place.

The problem I see with the whole schism thing is that because the RC has claimed infallibility, they cannot reconcile with the Orthodox. That makes admitting any flexibility with Orthodox traditions into an admission of fallibility.

[Kolokotronis]

"So whose tradition is correct?"

GC, which Tradition are you referring to? Insofar as the Holy Tradition that Elder Cleopas and we Orthodox and Latins are talking about here is concerned, which has to do with who has the authority to correctly interpret scripture, there is no difference.