St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary- Events - Summer Institute 2003

2003 Summer Institute
Preparatory readings

Kallistos Ware
TRADITION AND TRADITIONS.

Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, edited by Nicholas Lossky, José Miguez Bonino, John Pobee, Tom F. Stransky, Geoffrey Wainwright and Pauline Webb (Geneva: WCC, 2003)

Reprinted on this site by permission for the use of participants in the 2003 Liturgical Institute of Music and Pastoral Practice.

“Tradition” is used in a variety of senses, some wide-ranging and others more restricted. (1) In an inclusive sense it designates the whole of Christian faith* and practice – not only doctrinal teaching but worship, norms of behaviour, living experience, sanctity – as handed down within the church* from Christ and the apostles to the present day. Understood in this comprehensive way, Tradition is not to be contrasted with holy scripture* but seen as including it; scripture exists within Tradition. (2) In a narrower sense Tradition may be distinguished from scripture and taken to mean the teaching and practice of the church, not explicitly recorded in the words of the Bible, but handed down from the beginning within the Christian community. (3) More narrowly still – especially when used in the plural, “traditions” – the term may refer, often in a pejorative sense, to a belief or custom which cannot claim any divine or apostolic origin.

Although different Christian bodies differ widely in their estimate of Tradition in sense (2), it is obvious that no religious body could exist without some kind of tradition. Even the decision to dispense altogether with Tradition and to rely solely on the authority of scripture would itself constitute a tradition.

Tradition in the New Testament
The key passages occur in 1 Cor. “I received from the Lord”, says Paul, “what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf bread” (11:23). Here the noun “tradition” (paradosis) does not occur, but Paul uses the related verb paradidonai, ”hand on”. Two points are noteworthy in this text: Tradition is regarded as derived from Christ (cf. Gal. 1:12), and it is directly connected with the institution and celebration of holy communion. This second point acquires particular significance when seen in the context of contemporary “eucharistic ecclesiology”. The church, in the view of many present-day Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologians, is essentially a sacramental organism, which becomes itself through the celebration of the eucharist;* and so Tradition is best understood not primarily as a collection of facts and propositions, whether recorded in writing or preserved orally, but rather in terms of a communal action and a living presence. Tradition means the eucharistic Christ; to live within the Tradition signifies above all to “eat this bread and drink the cup”, proclaiming the Lord’s death “until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26).

Paul also links Tradition not just with the eucharist but more broadly with the total ministry of Christ. After stating, “I handed on to you... what I in turn had received”, he goes on to refer to Christ’s death “for our sins” and, more particularly, to his resurrection* (1 Cor. 15:3-4). But Tradition in the Pauline writings can also carry a much more restricted meaning, denoting a custom such as the veiling of the head by women during prayer (1 Cor. 11:2,5-6).

While in these passages the word “tradition” and its cognates bear a favourable sense, elsewhere in the NT the attitude is more ambivalent. Paul, for instance, refers to the “traditions of my ancestors” (Gal. 1:14), i.e. Jewish customs which he himself observes but which he does not consider obligatory upon all believers. Elsewhere he makes an emphatic contrast between the truth which is “according to Christ” and mere “human tradition”, which is to be rejected (Col. 2:8). In the synoptic gospels Jesus draws a similar distinction between the “tradition of the elders” and the “commandment of God”, and he accuses the scribes and Pharisees of “making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on” (Mark 7:5-13).

The NT attitude towards Tradition and traditions is therefore one of critical discernment. Traditions must be continually tested; as the Russian Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky (1903-58) observes, Tradition represents “the critical spirit of the church”. Seen in this way, Tradition is not only a protective, conservative principle but primarily the principle of growth and regeneration. Christians do not remain “in” the tradition simply through passive inertia or mechanical repetition. There must be an unceasing effort to discriminate between “Tradition” and “traditions”, between the essential gospel of salvation in Christ and what is simply accidental and historically conditioned. “The Lord said, I am truth. He did not say, I am custom” (council of Carthage, A.D. 257).

Tradition in the early church
Since, so far as we know, Christ did not commit his teachings to writing, the church depended at first entirely on oral tradition. After the composition of the books of the NT, oral traditions continued for a time to circulate in the Christian community and are cited by 2nd-century authors such as Papias and Hegesippus, but from A.D. 200 onwards little use is made of these unwritten traditions. The Gnostic appeal to a secret tradition independent of the recognized scriptures was firmly rejected by Irenaeus (d. c.200), who insisted that the Christian faith is based on the Bible and on the public teaching, in full agreement with the Bible, which is handed down by the succession of bishops in each Christian centre. Clement of Alexandria (d. c.215) appealed like the Gnostics to esoteric tradition, but here Origen (d. c.254) adopted a significantly different standpoint, holding that all tradition must be based ultimately on the Old and New Testaments. Writers in the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus and Novatian, refer to a summary of Christian teaching which they term the “canon” or “rule of faith” (regula fidei), but the contents of this canon turn out to be entirely biblical; it is regarded, not as something supplementary to the Bible, but as identical with scripture and confirmed by it (see canon). The same is true of the primitive baptismal creeds* and of later conciliar statements of faith such as the Nicene Creed* (381) and the Chalcedonian definition (451); these again are intended simply as re-affirmations of the fundamental biblical message concerning Christ.

One of the most explicit patristic statements concerning unwritten Tradition occurs in Basil of Caesarea (d.379): “Some things we have from written teaching, and others we have received handed down to us in a mystery from the tradition of the apostles. Both forms of tradition have the same value for piety” (On the Holy Spirit 27.66). This passage has sometimes been used to support a “two-source” theory of divine revelation. When Basil goes on, however, to give examples of the things “handed down to us in a mystery”, these involve not points of doctrinal teaching but various practices in Christian worship such as the sign of the cross, turning to the east during prayer, the invocation (epiclesis*) over the gifts at the eucharist, and threefold immersion in baptism, all of which he considers apostolic in origin, although not explicitly mentioned in scripture. Thus for Basil unwritten Tradition, while important for liturgical prayer, does not seem to represent a second source of doctrine, independent of the Bible. In this text, as in 1 Cor. 11:23, we note the connection between Tradition and the eucharist.

For patristic authors in general, then, Tradition does not constitute a supplementary source of information about Christ alongside scripture, but it denotes simply the manner in which scripture is interpreted and lived by successive generations within the church.

The Reformation debate
T he relationship between scripture and Tradition (in sense 2) has figured prominently in controversy between Roman Catholics and Protestants since the 16th century. The council of Trent (session 4, 8 April 1546) drew a distinction between “written books” (libri scripti) and “unwritten traditions” (sine scripto traditiones). It was probably not the intention of the bishops at Trent to commit themselves specifically to a “two-source” doctrine, whereby revelation is handed on partly in scripture and partly in living oral tradition, but this was in fact the prevailing view among the Roman Catholic theologians from Trent until Vatican II. Tradition was usually treated as distinct from scripture, and it was held that teachings not contained in the Bible may be gathered from Tradition alone. On such a view Tradition becomes something added to the biblical testimony, so that scripture and Tradition form two parallel and complementary elements that together make up a larger whole, the totality of revealed truth.

Two-source” language, similar to that employed by Roman Catholics, frequently occurs in Orthodox texts from the 17th century onwards. The statement in the Orthodox confession of Peter of Moghila (1643) is typical: “The articles of faith have received their authority and approbation partly from holy scripture and partly from ecclesiastical Tradition... The dogmas of the church are of two kinds, some being committed to writing... and the others handed down orally” (1.5).

On the Protestant side, the Reformers carefully distinguished between apostolic and post-apostolic Tradition, accepting the first as divine revelation,* while regarding the second as human teaching, to be received only if it agrees with the Bible. Scripture was proclaimed as the sole and final test by which all traditions were to be judged. The principle of Tradition was not denied, but its applications were rigorously submitted to the sovereign criterion of scripture, and any notion of two parallel “sources” of revealed truth was repudiated. Thus the Westminster confession of faith (Presbyterian: 1646) states that “all things necessary... for man’s salvation” are to be found “expressly set down in scripture”, or else may be deduced from it, “unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men” (1.6). But approval is then given to such traditional statements of faith as the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian definition. The Lutheran Augsburg confession (1530) and formula of Concord (1576), while affirming the primacy of scripture, similarly endorse the ancient creeds (the Apostles’, the Nicene and the Athanasian), together with the other conciliar decisions that have the “unanimous consent” of the undivided church.

The same position is adopted in the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1562). Here it is stated as a basic principle: “Holy scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation” (art. 6). The “three creeds” are to be received, since they agree with scripture (art. 8), but the decisions of “general councils” do not possess authority unless “it may be declared that they be taken out of holy scripture” (art. 21); “traditions” may be changed (art. 34). Tradition is thus accepted, on the Protestant and Anglican view, only in so far as it represents the true interpretation of scripture, and it can never constitute a parallel authority, independent of scripture or supplementary to it.

In modern ecumenical discussions concerning Tradition, the 16th-century categories with their sharp polarity have been largely superseded. The “two-source” language, while still found occasionally in Roman Catholic authors, is no longer generally prevalent. Tradition is now commonly understood, by Catholics and Orthodox alike, in an inclusive manner (sense 1 rather than sense 2); there is, in other words, one source and not two, so that Tradition and scripture must be always taken together and never treated separately. Many Anglicans and Protestants today are willing to recognize the need for Tradition, viewed in this comprehensive way, so long as the primacy of scripture is safeguarded.

In the context of multilateral ecumenism, the statement on “Scripture, Tradition and traditions” made by the fourth world conference on Faith and Order at Montreal 1963 marked an incipient convergence: “We exist as Christians by the Tradition of the gospel (the paradosis of the kerygma) testified in scripture, transmitted in and by the church through the power of the Holy Spirit. Tradition taken in this sense is actualized in the preaching of the word, in the administration of the sacraments and worship, in Christian teaching and theology, and in mission and witness to Christ by lives of the members of the church.” Yet Montreal could as yet do no more than recognize the hermeneutical problem of the relation between scripture and authoritative ecclesial traditions or between those traditions and Tradition (i.e. the transmission of the gospel as a whole, including scripture). Montreal offered no criteria but simply asked questions: “How can we distinguish between traditions embodying the true Tradition and merely human traditions? How can we overcome the situation in which we all read scripture in the light of our own traditions? Does not the ecumenical situation demand that we search for the Tradition by re-examining our own particular traditions?” The Montreal convergence made the production of Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry* possible. But the unresolved questions re-emerge in the responses of the churches to BEM, particularly in connection with the first question put by the Lima document: How far can your church “recognize in this text the faith of the church through the ages?” (see BEM 1982-90: Report on the Process and Responses, WCC, 1990, 131-42).

The shift in Roman Catholic opinion was strikingly apparent at Vatican II* (1962-65). In the original draft of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the first chapter was entitled “Two Sources of Revelation”, but such language was eliminated from the final version. While “sacred Tradition and sacred scripture” continue to be mentioned as coordinate elements, the integral connection between the two is constantly emphasized: together they “form one sacred deposit of the word of God” (para. 10). But the constitution also specifies: “It is not from sacred scripture alone that the church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed” (para. 9). While this statement is bound to prove disturbing to Protestants, it does not exclude the opinion, held in fact by many at the Council, that all revelation is indeed contained in scripture, albeit at times only in an obscure and implicit fashion. Since Vatican II most Catholic theologians have taken the view that Tradition and scripture, while different in form, are identical in content, so that Tradition is only formally, but not materially, independent of scripture. But this position is not actually stated in the constitution on revelation; Vatican II deliberately left the question open.

In its Decree on Ecumenism Vatican II invoked the important concept of “an order or hierarchy of truths” (para. 11), which makes possible a more flexible approach towards the nature of Tradition (see hierarchy of truths). Certain elements in Tradition are nearer than others to the central message of salvation; Tradition is not to be viewed in strictly monolithic terms. Whereas at Vatican I (1869-70) Tradition was closely associated with the pronouncements of the magisterium,* after Vatican II increasing emphasis has been placed on the role of the sensus fidelium, the conscience or consciousness of the people of God as a whole, in preserving and expressing Tradition (see consensus fidelium). This understanding too has served to re-inforce a more inclusive and flexible understanding of Tradition.

The developing ecumenical convergence on Tradition and scripture is evident in the agreed statement adopted by the Anglican-Orthodox joint doctrinal commission at Moscow in 1976. Here Tradition is taken in a comprehensive sense: it is “the entire life of the church in the Holy Spirit” (para. 10). Interdependence is stressed: “Any disjunction between scripture and Tradition such as would treat them as two separate ‘sources of revelation’ must be rejected. The two are correlative... Holy Tradition completes holy scripture in the sense that it safeguards the integrity of the biblical message” (para. 9). The primacy of scripture is asserted, but in qualified terms: scripture is styled, not “the only criterion”, but “the main criterion whereby the church tests traditions” (para. 9). The Moscow statement concludes with some optimism that the agreement reached on scripture and Tradition “offers to our churches a solid basis for closer rapprochement” (para. 12).

Yet difficulties remain. A notable instance is the belief in the bodily assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, proclaimed as a dogma* by the Roman Catholic Church in 1950. On the Protestant side it can be objected that the assumption is nowhere mentioned in the NT, either directly or indirectly, while the earliest specific references to it in ecclesiastical authors do not occur before the late 4th century. In what sense, then, can the doctrine be regarded as present, even in an obscure fashion, within scripture or apostolic Tradition?* For this very reason the 1950 definition has also aroused misgivings among the Orthodox. While affirming the assumption in their liturgical worship, they feel that because of the absence of early evidence it should not, and indeed cannot, be proclaimed as a dogma. In Lossky’s words, it is a mystery “which the church keeps in the hidden depths of her inner consciousness... not so much an object of faith as a foundation of hope”.

Living Tradition
Recent writing on Tradition is marked by a strong preference for dynamic rather than static categories. Tradition is not so much a “deposit of doctrine” as a shared style of living, not primarily an accumulation of documents and testimonies but the life of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the church. For the French Catholic Yves Congar, Tradition is “the church’s life in the communion of faith and worship... the setting in which the Catholic sense is fostered and finds expression”; for the Romanian Orthodox Dumitru Staniloae it is “not a sum of propositions learned by heart, but a lived experience”. In any contemporary discussion of the topic, what needs to be said first of all is that the only true Tradition is living, critical and creative, formed by the union of human freedom with the grace* of the Holy Spirit.*

However, this vision of Tradition as dynamic and developing is by no means exclusively modern. Gregory of Nazianzus (329-89), for instance, envisages a progressive revelation in three main stages: “The Old Testament preached the Father clearly, but the Son only in an obscure manner. The New Testament revealed the Son, but did no more than hint at the godhead of the Holy Spirit. Today the Spirit dwells among us, manifesting himself to us more and more clearly.” So, “by gradual additions and ascents, advancing from glory to glory”, the people of God grows in its apprehension of the truth (Oration 31.26-27). Significantly Gregory uses the words “more and more” of the Spirit’s self-disclosure; the Paraclete’s manifestation is not completed at Pentecost,* but it develops with an ever-increasing clarity in the continuing life of the church.

A dynamic understanding of Tradition was re-affirmed during the 19th century in Catholic Germany by Johann Möhler and the Tübingen school, and in Orthodox Russia by Aleksey Khomyakov. Möhler described Tradition as “the living gospel... this vital, spiritual force, which we inherit from our fathers and which is perpetuated in the church”. Cardinal Newman discussed the subject more systematically in his seminal Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845). His views, although never officially adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, have proved widely influential and received at least partial confirmation in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation at Vatican II: “This Tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in understanding of the realities and the words that have been handed down” (para. 8). But many Orthodox, while wholeheartedly endorsing a dynamic view of Tradition, are unhappy about the phrase “development of doctrine”, preferring to speak rather of a “development in the expression of doctrine”.

As living and dynamic, Tradition is essentially communal. It is transmitted not by isolated individuals but by persons* in relation – by the total ecclesial community, especially when gathered for the celebration of the eucharist. While, in the Catholic and Orthodox view, the apostolic succession of bishops plays a central role in the transmission of Tradition, it is handed down equally through the succession – which also may be termed “apostolic” – of holy men and women in the church, through what Symeon the New Theologian (959-1022) called the “golden chain” of the saints extending from Christ to our own day. Tradition involves the transmission not just of doctrine but of sanctity and spirituality. And alongside the bishops and the saints, all the baptized without exception are active and responsible guardians of Tradition. In the words of Paulinus of Nola (d.431): “Let us hang upon the lips of all the faithful, for the Spirit of God breathes upon every one of them.”

While Tradition is indeed the dynamic movement of God in history,* it is to be seen also in a metahistorical or eschatological perspective. It is not so much a long line stretched out in time as the gathering of time itself into God’s eternity, the irruption into this present age of the eschaton, or age to come (see eschatology).

KALLISTOS WARE

Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The Moscow Agreed Statement, London, 1977 · Commission on Faith and Order, The Report of the Theological Commission on Tradition and Traditions, WCC, 1963 · Y. Congar, La Tradition et les traditions (ET Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and Theological Essay, London, Burns & Oates, 1966) · R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church, London, SCM Press, 1962 · V. Lossky, “Tradition and traditions”, in In the Image and Likeness of God, Crestwood NY, SVS, 1974 · P.C. Rodger & L. Vischer eds, The Fourth World Conference on Faith and Order: Montreal 1963, London, SCM Press, 1964, 50-61 · J.E. Thiel, Senses of Tradition: Continuity and Development in Catholic Faith, New York, Oxford UP, 2000.