Posted on 11/11/2006 8:16:16 AM PST by annalex
On Holy Scripture
Ch. 2 from
The Truth of Our Faith:: A Discourse from Holy Scripture on the
Teachings of
True Christianity, By
Elder Cleopa of RomaniaInquirer: What do we mean by the term “Holy Scripture?”
Elder Cleopa: The term Holy Scripture denotes the sum of holy books that were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit within a time period of close to 1,500 years, namely, from Moses, 1,400 years before Christ, until the writer of the Apocalypse, nearly 100 years after Christ.
Inq.: Why don’t the bishops and priests sanction Christians, who are members of the Church, to interpret and preach publicly the word of God from the Scriptures?
EC: Each Christian has the need to read Holy Scripture, yet each Christian does not also have the authority or ability to teach and interpret the words of Scripture. This privileged authority is reserved for the Church via its holy clergy and theologians, men who are instructed in and knowledgeable of the true faith. When we consider how our Saviour gave the grace of teaching to His Holy Apostles (Mat. 28:20) and not to the masses it is easy for us to see that the prerogative to teach is held only by the bishops, priests and theologians of our Church. It was the Apostles who were sent by Christ to teach and to celebrate the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments). Our Apostle Paul says: “How shall they preach, except they be sent?” (Rom. 10:15). Accordingly, the bishops are the lawful successors to the Apostles and those sent for the preaching (kerygma) to the people. Paul entrusts the heavy burden of the instruction of the people to Timothy and not to the faithful. He speaks of this elsewhere: “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?” (1 Cor. 12:29) Again he says to Timothy that the clergy must be “apt to teach” others (1 Tim. 3:2). He does not, however, say the same thing for the faithful. He makes a distinction between shepherd and sheep, between teacher and those taught. Still, the teachers cannot teach whatever they would like, but that which the Church teaches universally. They teach in the name of the Church and of Christ. Not everyone has the intellectual ability and the requisite divine grace necessary to expound Holy Scripture correctly. The Apostle Peter also says this in his second epistle, referring to the epistles of the Apostle Paul. He says the following: “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16).
Inq.: Some say that it is not right that members of the Church don’t have the right to interpret and expound upon Scripture. As this excerpt says, each Christian knows how to render Holy Scripture: “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things,” and “the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you” (1 John 2:20, 27).
EC: 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. What man is so crazed as to wish to plunge into such an abyss of water without knowing how to swim? Holy Scripture, according to the Fathers, is “bone” and no one will venture with teeth “fit for milk” to break the strong bones of Holy Scripture - for those teeth will be crushed.
You’ve read in Scripture about the eunuch of Candace, Queen of the Ethiopians? He was reading the Prophet Isaiah when the Apostle Philip asked him if he understood that which he read, to which he replied: “How can I, except some man should guide me?” (Acts 8:31).
You realize also that the word “unction,” or “anointing” (chrisma) that you mentioned above means the effusion of the Holy Spirit in the Mystery of Holy Chrism, directly after Baptism (Acts 8:17).
The phrase “you know all things” signifies everything that contains Christian truth and salvation, as well as everything that is related to the antichrist and his adherents, to whom the subsequent verse of the epistle of the holy John the Theologian refers. One must not, therefore, teach according to one’s own understanding and perception, for one will be deceived.
Inq.: All the same, it is said that each Christian has the right and obligation to read Holy Scripture on his own, as the Saviour admonishes us: “You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness of me” (Jn. 5:39).
EC: Be careful, because many heretics of earlier eras made bold to immerse themselves in the fathomless sea of Scripture and drowned spiritually, thus perishing together with as many as followed them. They don’t have all the same spiritual maturity. They are not all able to understand the mystery of Holy Scripture.
Holy Scripture is understood and explained in three ways: 1) according to its literal meaning, namely the nominal, grammatical, verbal and historical, 2) allegorically or metaphorically, which is superior to the former, and 3) spiritually. According to the Fathers, the simplest of senses to alight upon is the first meaning, according to the letter of Scripture; to penetrate with discretion to the nature of Scripture requires modest learning, while to explain the depth of the meanings of Scripture is of the highest spiritual advancement and in need of the most divine grace. The perfect wisdom of Scripture belongs, according to Saint Paul, to the perfect: “Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to naught: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory” (1 Cor. 2: 6-7).
Inq.: There are those who contend that it is not necessary for someone to have much learning to be able to understand the teachings of Scripture, since to the unlearned He revealed the wisdom of these teachings, just as the Saviour says: “I thank Thee, O Father, . . . because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (Mat. 11:25).
EC: Yes, God revealed His wisdom to those that were known to be babes in wickedness but not in mind [1] and judgement. In other words, He revealed His wisdom to those who, with respect to good works, were perfect and had attained to the innocence of infants. That’s why Paul counsels the Corinthians as follows: “Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be ye men” (1 Cor. 14:20).
Inq.: Yet, God rebuked the wisdom and knowledge of men, as this passage indicates: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent” (Is. 29:14). Saint Paul also says: “Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” (1 Cor. 1:19). Might it not be that God is not able to give the wisdom of understanding the Scriptures to certain people who are worldly-wise, as the Orthodox maintain?
EC: You should know that God does not condemn just any wisdom and knowledge, but that which kills man spiritually. If He were to censure every wisdom, He would have to reject also the wisdom of Solomon, the wisdom of Joshua, son of Sirac, the wisdom of Christ the Saviour, of the Prophets and Apostles, to those whom He gave the commandment to be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Mat. 10:16). Yet, it isn’t like this in the least. Hence, take care not to resemble those to whom the Saviour said: “Your do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God” (Mat. 22:29).
Inq.: Is Holy Scripture sufficient in order to guide man to salvation?
EC: No, it is not sufficient to guide man to salvation, [2] inasmuch as, firstly, it wasn’t given to man from the beginning and, secondly, when it was given it wasn’t the only authentic text, with regard to the salvation of human souls, because before it there was the Holy Tradition. Many years before Moses began writing the first books of the Old Testament, there was sacred piety in the community of the people of Israel. Similarly, the books of the New Testament began to be written ten years after the formal foundation of the Church, which took place on the day of Pentecost. The Church chose and sealed as inspired by God the books of the two Testaments over one hundred years later.[3] These then comprised the declared Canon of the books of Holy Scripture. Thereafter the Church maintained this Canon of Truth, inasmuch as it is the very “pillar and ground of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). The Holy Spirit operates within all of this for the preservation of the truth about salvation. Where the Church is, says Saint Jerome, there also is the Spirit of God and where the Spirit of God is, there also is the Church and all grace - since the Spirit is truth.
Endnotes
1 nous: mind, thought, reason; attitude, intention, purpose; understanding, discernment: The English word that best conveys the meaning of the Greek word nous is probably the word mind, however, it also has other meanings as well. The Fathers refer to the nous as the soul (the “spiritual nature” of a man, St. Isaac the Syrian) and the heart (or the “essence of the soul”). More particularly, it constitutes the innermost aspect of the heart (St. Diadochos). Yet, it is also referred to as the “eye of the soul” (St. John of Damascus) or the “organ of theoria” (St. Macarius of Egypt) which is “engaged in pure prayer” (St. Isaac the Syrian). In this book the words mind and intellect have been used most often when rendering the Greek word nous.
2
“We cannot assert that Scripture is self-sufficient; and this is not because it is incomplete, or inexact, or has any defects, but because Scripture in its very essence does not lay claim to self-sufficiency. . . . If we declare Scripture to be self-sufficient, we only expose it to subjective, arbitrary interpretation, thus cutting it away from its sacred source. Scripture is given to us in tradition. It is the vital, crystallising centre. The Church, as the Body of Christ, stands mystically first and is fuller than Scripture. This does not limit Scripture, or cast shadows on it. But truth is revealed to us not only historically. Christ appeared and still appears before us not only in the Scriptures; He unchangeably and unceasingly reveals Himself in the Church, in His own Body. In the times of the early Christians the Gospels were not yet written and could not be the sole source of knowledge. The Church acted according to the spirit of the Gospel, and, what is more, the Gospel came to life in the Church, in the Holy Eucharist. In the Christ of the Holy Eucharist Christians learned to know the Christ of the Gospels, and so His image became vivid to them.” Fr. George Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, pp. 48-493 By the end of the first century . . . the Church possessed the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Although they were not perhaps as yet collected into one volume, each had been accepted by the group of churches for which it was written. Very soon afterward they were combined in one quadripartite Gospel, and in the middle of the second century the Christian apologist Tatian composed the first harmony, or code, of the Gospels. . . The appearance of the New Testament in the Church as a book, as Scripture, was therefore not a new factor, but a record of the founding tradition. Just because it was identical with the original tradition as the Church already knew it, there appeared at first no need of a canon, or precisely fixed list of accepted records of Scripture.” (Fr. Alexander Schmemann The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy, pg. 44) In fact, for the western Church it was not until 419 AD at the Council of the 217 Blessed Fathers assembled at Carthage that the entire New Testament as we know it today was irrevocably canonised (Canon XXIV). - Editor
On Holy TraditionCh. 3 from The Truth of Our Faith:: A Discourse from Holy Scripture on the
Teachings of True Christianity, By Elder Cleopa of RomaniaInquirer: What is the Holy Tradition that the Orthodox consider to be the second source of Holy Revelation and coequal with Holy Scripture?
Elder Cleopa: Holy Tradition is the teaching of the Church, God-given with a living voice, from which a portion was later written down. As with Holy Scripture, so, too, Holy Tradition contains Holy Revelation, and is, therefore, fundamental for our salvation. Holy Tradition is the life of the Church in the Holy Spirit and, consonant with the enduring life of the Church, is thus a wellspring of Holy Revelation, such that, consequently, it possesses the same authority as Holy Scripture.
From the time of Adam until that of Abraham, according to the old chronologies, 3,678 years passed, and if we add 430 years when the Israelites remained in Egypt, we have 4,108 years. Throughout this period of time Holy Scripture neither existed nor was the Sabbath considered as a feast among the people. During this period of many thousands of years the faithful and chosen people were guided to the path of salvation only by Holy Tradition, namely, from the teachings about God which they received from a living voice. Only for the duration of 1400 years - from the time of Moses until the advent of Christ - were they guided by the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.
Just as before the books of the Old Testament were written the people were guided in the knowledge of God and on the path of salvation only by Holy Tradition (Tradition with a living voice, orally), so too were they precisely before the writing of the books of the New Testament. The Holy Tradition was the guide by which the first Christians were directed to the path of salvation. The first to impart the teachings of the New Testament with a living voice to the ears of the people was our Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, who for three and a half years continually taught the people, distributing His Gospel without, however, writing anything. Inasmuch as He was carrying out obedience to His Father, He didn’t send His Apostles to write but to preach the Gospel to the whole world, saying to them: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Mat. 28:19-20). From the day of its establishment (33 AD) until the year 44 AD, when the the Holy Apostle Matthew wrote the first Gospel [1], the Church was governed without the Scriptures of the New Testament, but only with the Holy Tradition of which only a part was later recorded. Although there were many other writers for whom it was claimed that they were inspired and faithful scribes of the Apostles, the Church is She who did or did not recognise them, for She is unerring. The Church lived the truth of the Gospel even before anything was committed to writing, having lived with the Holy Tradition from the outset.
So then, this is the Holy Tradition: The source and the root of the two Testaments - the Old and the New - and thus the reason why we call it a source of Holy Revelation, since it carries the same weight as Holy Scripture.
Inq.: Yes, but it is said that Holy Scripture as God’s word is not permitted to be substituted or exchanged with Tradition, which is man’s word, as is written in the Gospel: “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? . . . ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying: ‘This people . . . in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men” (Mat. 15:3, 6-9; Mk. 7:13). Thus, it is not necessary for us to replace or add the tradition of men to the law of God, which is contained in Holy Scripture.
EC: What your friends have told you is not at all true, since the law of God is not only contained in Holy Scripture. Listen to what the divine Evangelist John says: “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” (Jn. 21:25). Again the same Evangelist declares in one of his epistles: “Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full” (2 Jn. 1:12). So, you see that the holy evangelist, when he had the ability, taught his disciples more with the living voice of Tradition than by sending them epistles. While your friends keep at all costs only so much as is written, they don’t take into account that both the Saviour and the majority of His Apostles did not leave anything written, but rather taught orally, with the living voice of Tradition.
Inq.: In that case, I don’t know how Christians are to understand the statement that we must not be seduced by the false teachings of men, especially those which are religious and rely on Scripture. After all, the Apostle counsels us: “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” (Col. 2:8). It is our responsibility, then, to preserve ourselves from the false traditions of men.
EC: Dearest to Christ, you do not discern the difference between the teachings of human traditions and those that proceed from the apostolic and evangelical tradition. You brought here an excerpt from Holy Scripture that refers to the tradition of human teachings and pseudo philosophy that has no relationship whatsoever to the evangelical and apostolic Tradition of the Church of Jesus Christ. Holy Tradition is neither a tradition of men, nor a philosophy, nor some kind of trickery, but is the word of God that He delivered to us personally. The great Apostle Paul teaches and exhorts us to keep with vigour the traditions, saying; “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). On the contrary, some counsel weaker Christians to slander and abandon the apostolic and evangelical traditions, without understanding that Holy Scripture itself is a fruit of the Holy Spirit that grew out of the roots and tree of Holy Tradition.
Inq.: Why isn’t Holy Scripture sufficient for faith and salvation, without having any need whatsoever of Tradition? This appears to be the case from the words of the Apostle Paul to Timothy: “And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:15-16). These words are clear. Any addition to Holy Scripture is unnecessary.
EC: Here he is speaking only about the Scripture of the Old Testament, for the New Testament had not yet been written. Paul wrote to Timothy that a good teacher could use the Old Testament for the support of his faith in Christ and his instruction in Christianity. According to the notion that you mistakenly asserted, it follows that not one book of the New Testament - from those that were written in the period that followed these epistles of the Apostle Paul to Timothy - should be accepted. Rather, it is enough for us to recognize the Old Testament books mentioned here in the passage to which you refer.
Inq.: Some people don’t acknowledge the Tradition because they say that with the passing of time it yielded to many illegitimate elements, so that, especially today, we are no longer able to discern the true apostolic Tradition from the false.
EC: The Church of Christ determined the truths of the faith, according to the long course of Tradition, through the teachings and canons of the holy Oecumenical Councils, decrees and the Symbol of Faith [The Creed], and with confessions [of Faith] by holy and wonderworking hierarchs such as were made at the many local synods which have been held continuously since the days of old. At these synods the authenticity and genuineness of the holy Orthodox Faith was firmly established, primarily therein where it was attacked by the existing heresies of the time. From the totality of such synods appears the irrevocable and inalterable content of Holy Tradition. This is understood when you examine closely the essence of the following conditions:
- Do not sanction conceptions that contain inconsistencies amongst themselves or contradictions with the apostolic Tradition and Holy Scripture. (A teaching is to be considered worthy of “Tradition” when it stems from the Saviour or the Holy Apostles and is directly under the influence of the Holy Spirit.)
- The Tradition is that which has been safeguarded from the Apostolic Church and has an uninterrupted continuity until today.
- The Tradition is that which is confessed and practiced by the entire universal Orthodox Church.
- The Tradition is that which is in harmony with the greatest portion of the fathers and ecclesiastical writers.
When a tradition does not fulfil these stipulations, it cannot be considered true and holy, and consequently cannot be considered admissible or fit to be observed.
Inq.: Notwithstanding all the efforts which you say the Orthodox Church has made and makes relative to the truth of Tradition, some believe only the teachings which are contained in Holy Scripture. For the first Christians - they say - accepted only such writings as were contained in Holy Scripture, as it is written: “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). From this it follows that we should keep those teachings find written in Holy Scripture.
EC: However, the great Apostle Paul commends the Christans of Corinth not because they kept the written teachings, but because they obeyed him and observed with diligence the oral teachings that they had received from him. Listen to what he writes; “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and even as I delivered to you, ye are holding fast the traditions” (1 Cor. 11:2). I wonder, what is better to do: for us to keep only the written teachings or to follow the great Apostle Paul who extols those who keep the unwritten tradition as well? Furthermore, we’ve established that the Holy Apostles and Evangelists believed and preach-ed abundantly from Holy Tradition, which they inherited from of old and is not written anywhere in Holy Scripture.
Inq.: Where specifically does it appear that the Holy Apostles taught other teachings aside from those which are written in Holy Scripture?
EC: Here are two testimonies: The Holy Apostle Jude in his catholic epistle, verse nine, among others, says: “But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgement upon him, but said, The Lord rebuke thee” (Jude 9). Dearest to Christ, search all of Holy Scripture and see if you will find written this utterance. Still further down in the same epistle the Apostle refers to the prophecy of Enoch, saying: “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints, to execute judgement upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him” (Jude 14-20). Yet, the Apostle Jude is not alone in speaking from Tradition. Listen to what the illustrious Paul says in his second epistle to Timothy; “Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith” (2 Tim. 3:8). And again the renowned Apostle Paul, guiding the priests of Ephesus, says: “Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, it is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). Now, I ask you, who insist on putting faith only in the written word, from where did the two Apostles - Jude and Paul - take the foregoing words, for you will not find them written anywhere in Holy Scripture?
Inq.: Still, I question if it is possible for Holy Tradition to be preserved until today unadulterated and genuine in all respects as in the beginning? Shouldn’t we possess more assurances from the written teachings of Holy Scripture?
EC: You saw above that the famed Paul commends the Christians of Corinth for keeping, with care and mindfulness, the unwritten traditions, such as they had received from his very lips. Moreover, you heard that the Apostles Paul and Jude employed in their preaching words taken directly from Holy Tradition, such as those that referred to the prophecy of Enoch, and others. Further, I also pointed out to you by what means Holy Tradition was preserved throughout the ages. Furthermore, the same Apostle Paul exhorts and directs the Christians of Thessalonica to be very attentive and vigilant to keep the Holy Tradition: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). And in another place he says: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). In other words, he is speaking of the Gospel that he handed down to them with a living voice and not only by written word.
Inq.: How was this Canon of Holy Tradition in the Church preserved over the span of thousands of years? In our age some allege that from day to day the clergy and ecclesiastical writers alter the truth of Holy Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition, which in the beginning was authentic and genuine? They say that if you have in your hand a book that was published 50 years ago and you put it next to one published recently, they would have nothing in common. It follows, then, that if the hierarchs and priests have done this with the sacred books, they would do the same with the Holy Tradition of which the Orthodox boast as having preserved unscathed from the Holy Apostles.
EC: That which your companions have accepted is not at all correct. The teachings of the Church of Christ are safeguarded by the Holy Spirit and cannot err (Mat. 10:17-20, John 4: 16-26, 1 Tim. 3:15). Its very founder, Jesus Christ governs it in an unseen way, until the end of the ages (Mat. 28:20). If some ecclesiastical writers, hierarchs, priests or laity translated the Bible from another language or amended some passage of which an expression does not correspond to the present-day speech of our people, this would be an adjustment and modification of expression and not a serious alteration of the substance of the Biblical text. If today a Romanian from the time of the Elder Mirtsea or Stephan the Great (1504) were resurrected and you wanted to speak with him, you would understand him with difficulty, the language having developed, no longer being exactly that which was spoken then. That’s exactly what happened regarding the books. With the passage of time the writers’ words or expressions were amended with suitable present-day language, without however, changing the meaning of the profound and sacred writings. Previously, I referred you to the foundation upon which Holy Tradition rests and by what means the preservation of its authentic original image is ensured and is conveyed through the ages. This refers to, namely, the ancient Symbol of Faith (The Creed), the apostolic canons and the dogmatic decisions of the seven [2] Oecumenical Councils. To these can also be added the following monumental and meaningful testaments - assurances of the unimpaired preservation of the Holy Tradition:
- The acts of the early Church, the witnesses of the company of the apostles, amongst whom are Saint Ignatius the God-bearer (+104 AD), a disciple of the Apostles and Saint Polycarp of Smyrna (+106 AD). These Fathers admonished the faithful of their day to safeguard themselves from the teachings of heretics and to maintain in the full only the Apostolic Tradition (Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Bk 2:36).
- Hegessipus, Eusebius tells us5, attempted to collect the whole of the apostolic traditions and nearly managed it, gathering more than five books worth of material that Eusebius studied. Unfortunately, with the passage of time, these books were eventually lost (Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Bk 4:8).
- Saint Irenaeus (+202 AD) and Clement of Alexandria (+215 AD) inform us: “Those who explain Scripture without the help of the Church’s Tradition cut asunder the significance of truth” (Stromatis, pg 7).
Behold, further, those brilliant witnesses representing the faith of apostolic times and the period immediately following it up until the fourth century. The acts of the ancient Church are an important testimony to the value of the Holy Tradition and honour shown it from those times until today.
- Origin (+250 AD) says: “Preserve the Holy Tradition in the Church.”
- St. Epiphanios (+403 AD) writes: “It is necessary to hold to the Tradition because it is not possible for everything to be found in Holy Scripture. The Holy Apostles handed down some things via the written word, while others via the spoken.”
- Saint John Chrysostom (+407 AD) says: “Hence it is clear that the Holy Apostles did not deliver everything by epistle; rather many things they handed down via the spoken word which is also trustworthy. If there is the Tradition, then don’t ask for anything more” (4th Homily on 2 Thess. See verse 2:45)
- Saint Gregory of Nyssa (+394 AD) writes: “We have the Tradition set out for us from the Fathers like an inheritance by apostolic succession and transmitted via the saints” (Against Eunomius, Book 40).
- Saint Basil the Great (+379 AD) in his writings provides similar testimony. Here is how he expresses it: “Among the dogmas and kerygma (evangelical truths) that are safeguarded in the Church, some we have from the written teachings while others we’ve received orally from the Tradition of the Apostles by a concealed succession. The later hold the same legitimacy and force as the written texts” (On the Holy Spirit)
We must uphold with great reverence and godliness Holy Tradition since all that is needful to effect our salvation is not found within Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture instructs us to do many things; however, it does not make manifest to us the light. For example, it instructs us to be baptized, but it doesn’t explain to us the method. Likewise, it guides us to confess our sins, receive communion, be crowned (married) - but nowhere does it specify the rite of carrying-out these mysterion (sacraments). Furthermore, it instructs us to pray, but doesn’t tell us how, where and when. It tells us to make the sign of the Holy Cross in front of our chest according to the psalmist “Lord, lift Thou up the light of Thy countenance upon us,” but it doesn’t show us how. Who teaches us in writing to worship facing east? Where in Scripture are we told the words of the epiclesis (invocation) of the Holy Spirit for the sanctification of the all-holy Mysteries? Which teaching from Holy Scripture instructs us to bless the water of Baptism and the holy Unction of Holy Chrismation? Which passage in Scripture teaches us about the threefold denunciation and the renunciations of Satan before Holy Baptism? The prayer of glorification toward the Holy Trinity - “Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit” - from which passage did it come to us?
Posing these questions to the slanderer of Tradition, Saint Basil the Great says: “If we consent to abandon the unwritten traditions on the pretext that they don’t have great worth, we err in great and elevated matters, rejecting the Gospel.”
The ordering, therefore, by which the Church upholds the unwritten is: whatever is of apostolic descent and is practiced by the Fathers receives the validity of tradition and has the power of law in the Church of Christ (The Rudder, Neamts Monastery, 1844, Canons 87, 91). Accordingly therefore, it must safeguarded since its importance and benefit springs from the relationship that exists between it and Holy Scripture. It is true that both have remained within a reciprocal unity and intimate relationship - a relationship based on the fact that both comprise the holy revelation of God and for us are the fount and source of Revelation. Hence, it is not possible for there to exist an inner contradiction between the two or for us to exclude one from the other. Holy Scripture possesses its unique witness of the scriptural canon and its dogmatic character (its divine inspiration) only in and with Holy Tradition, while Holy Tradition is able to prove the authenticity of its truth only together with Holy Scripture.
Endnotes
1 There are scholars who believe that, in fact, “the writing of the three first Gospels is placed. . . around the year 70 AD.” (J. Karabidopoulos, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 104 (In Greek))
2 The Elder here is referring to the well-known seven Oecumenical Councils, however, in essence the Church also accepts an eighth (879), which confirmed the rejection of the “filioque” clause in the presence and with the support of the Church of Rome, and a ninth (1341), which rejected the humanistic-scholastic theology of Barlaam in support of the Hesychasts and St. Gregory Palamas. The truths expounded by these two councils have helped to uphold the Church against the theological distortions which have been brought to bear over the past 650 years, first in the West, and soon thereafter in the East.
I think you've come down with an acute figure of speech.
You might note that few of the great masses of people could read. How many of the 5000 that heard Jesus in the wilderness, which he fed with the bread (not counting the women and children), do you figure could read.
Nowadays it's quite different. The words of Jesus Himself are available to the people, and they read about His promises and teachings, which are for them, who have souls and who can be filled with the Spirit.
So on issues on which they disagree, they are both right?
Cronos, there is a little bit more to that. For one, +Augustine's "original sin" theory which was unknown and never officially accepted by the entire Church until after the Schism. That concept is directly related to our dogmatic difference in not just how but why the Blessed Ever-Virgin Theotokos remained immaculate.
The filioque is more than a linguistic issue. The papal supremacy, although of itself not a theological issue, is a serious one that was brewing from the 4th century onward.
These issues are difficult but not insurmountable. The problem the Church will have to deal with is to show that neither side was wrong on any of them. Once you move beyond individual Father's opinions and adopt them as dogma, if you move beyond what the Seven Councils declared, and add almost twice as many of them to one side of the Church, insisting they are ecumenical, it becomes a lot more difficult to reconcile.
I have no disagreement with your statement other than the fact that both Islam and Protestantism are man-made churches. Like with Islam, their beginning is with a man. Protestants believe the Church was in apostasy for 1,500 years (Luther actually wanted only to reform some corrupt practices of individual clerics, and that grew into a whole new theology, new biblical canon, AND a man-made church)
Mainstream Protestants are Trinitarian Christians and, as such, our brothers. There is no comparison between them and ishamelite heretics as far as their beliefs are concerned.
But, the Pope is more than just first in honor. The Bishop of Rome was from the earliest days (I won't say from the the beginning) the pre-eminent bishop in the Church, the presiding bishop, the "elder" bishop, but not a "supreme priest" (pontifex maximus), a pagan title +Leo arrogated to himself; nor was he the ruler of the Church although the papal legates liked to use that term.
The Orthodox, of course, recognize the Pope's right to primacy in honor, but reject the biblical interpretation of his supremacy, his title as the Vicar of Christ (also arrogated by a pope in the 5th century based on one of Syrian Father's opinion in the 4th century), "Prince of the Apostles," etc. as human innovations and titles and powers never bestowed by an Ecumenical Council.
Petrine supremacy is equating uninspired bishops of the city of Old Rome to the inspired Apostle, by virtue of his office alone. No other patriarch does that, although they all can trace their roots to one of the Apostles. Thus, when the bishop of Constantinople speaks, no one says "John spoke." No Eastern bishop lives under the illusion that his office entails the same qualities his apostolic predecessor possessed. But when the Pope speaks, they say "Peter spoke." Rubbish! It amounts to a personality cult.
His supreme authority as a bishop above all bishops is clearly stated in Roman Catholic Catechism: "the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered" [paragraph 882], and "The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, 'supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls'" [paragraph 937].
I can assure you that this is not the understanding the Church had in the first millennium. It is almost impossible for this to be rescinded, even if ignored, removed, reworded, etc. without in some way admitting it is wrong. And without such recension no unity will ever be possible.
Why don't you take that up with the translators of the New Testament. The word used "ethnos" (eqnoV) means a large gathering of individuals, a tribe, or a nation (just as American native tribes are considered nations).
The NT says "make disciples of all the nations." I take it that you are correcting the Lord. Good luck!
You might note that few of the great masses of people could read
I have news for you: we still have large numbers of functionally illiterate people with poor reading comprehension skills. The illiteracy in the world is not negligible. Likewise, outside of the prosperous dozen or so developed countries, bibles are not as readily available and affordable to vast multitudes of people 2,000 years after our Lord instructed his newly appointed Church elders to teach the masses what he had taught the Apostles.
So, if the Bible was not written for the masses, obviously it wasn't intended for the masses to interpret it either. Those who subscribe to "each man his own pope" Protestant motto attest to the fragility of such endeavors by the fact that new "denominations" are being formed as "true" churches of Christ ever day, now numbering in tens of thousands and continually atomizing.
Why? Because there are as many opinions as there are individuals. The Faith once delivered by the Lord is not a matter of one's personal opinion or, God forbid, subject to logic or rationalizations.
Clearly, the Lord never intended the nations of believers to read the Bible and teach themselves. There is no biblical reference to "sola scriptura" heresy. It's a man-made tradition of Luther.
There is, indeed, one man - Jesus.
By your logic, one could argue that Roman Catholics see Peter as the founder of Roman Catholicism -- is the Pope not heir to the "Throne of Peter?"
Terabitten: There is, indeed, one man - Jesus
Christ did not establish a sect, but His Church, and He left it to the Apostles and their successors to baptize all nations in the name (of each Person) of the Holy Trinity, and to teach them everything He taught. [Mat 28:19]
Christian Church starts with our Lord, Jesus Christ, on the Pentecost, in the year 33 A.D. Islam is established in the 6th century by a man called Mohammad. Protestant church is born 1,000 years later by a man called Luther. I think the difference is glaringly obvious.
By your logic, one could argue that Roman Catholics see Peter as the founder of Roman Catholicism
Nonsense. Saint Peter is not the founder of Roman Catholicism. The Pope is a successor to +Peter's office as the Bishop of Rome. Luther is a successor to no one's office. His church came out of his mind and his movement. He is the founder of Protestantism, just as Mohammad is the founder of Islam.
I agree there's a lot more, but what I meant by "They stopped talking and misunderstanding grew over the centuries, causing the wide schism, which is now being bridged" reflects the fact that the two sides just stopped talking, no councils to discuss theological matters or anything. So, any issues of dispute were never discussed with BOTH sides to arrive at a conclusion, and they just lasted.
But the people who would seek the Kingdom do read the Bible and do understand it, and the teachings of Jesus were to individuals, about individuals and for individuals. I pointed out the two main teachings a few posts ago.
You do not make a disciples of a nation. If it were true that you could, then making disciples of the officials (individuals) would bind all people in that nation.
Malarkey.
Those who are illiterate today have the Gospels read to them, and hearing, they understand, if they are of that heart. The more, especially in the greater nations, read it themselves. It is up to the individual that he seeks God or not, not to a corporate organization.
This is the stone upon which those churches who claim dominance are broken.
There are indeed as many opinions as there are people but there is only one opinion in the Gospels and it is clear; the authority for the salvation for each man is the responsibility of that man. The only men that pledge their souls to the church are those who refuse that responsibility, and reasonably enough, it is those people and peoples that would let a despotic tyranny to persist in their nation.
All churches are man made, man run and for the purpose of man. The Catholic church is no different, even though it try mightily to impress interpretation on the scriptures to rule over men.
America was founded against the divine right of kings. The notion that the Israelite Davidic royal line was passed to non-Israelites is foolish, and is only found as an impressed interpretation on one passage in one Gospel. The other Gospels are different.
It would have been better if there were some twistable passage that passed the royal line to Paul, since Paul brought the Gospels to the non-Israelites. But there wasn't was there? The church had to make do with Peter thereby causing a scriptural crisis.
The notion that the Catholic, or any, church is the gatekeeper of spiritual salvation itself causes a scriptural crisis.
The only way the church has been able to pass it over was because it taught to ignorant people and babies that believe anything you tell them, unable to read and think for themselves.
The impulse to rule is the foundation of evil in all of history because it is the leadership of people or nation that cause evil to come upon the people. God gave the Israelites over to kings because that is what the people wanted and He would show them the nature of rule by men.
The Catholic church is the legacy of that impulse. But it is fading. The church, being the leader of the unthinking and slavishly accepting man, is the giving way to the thinking man.
You can cite your traditions and clumsily interpreted scripture all you like, but the die is cast.
You can argue with me all you want to, but the scriptures are crystal clear.
I agree. I just wanted to make sure others who read this understand that this was not the only issue.
Needless to say, continuous talk and refinement is a must and it will hopefully continue until full communion.
Fantasy. He taught mostly to the Apostles. To others He spoke in parables.
You do not make a disciples of a nation
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" [Mat 28:19, NAB]
The Greek original uses the verb maqetusate from maqeteuo (to be a disciple of, to make a disciple, to follow one's teaching). The verb is also in Aorist (future tense).
You are clearly saying the Bible is not saying what it is clearly saying.
Those who are illiterate today have the Gospels read to them, and hearing, they understand, if they are of that heart
If Christ wanted everyone to read the Bible and interpret it as they please He would have made that happen. Instead, He clearly chose not to, but to commission His Apostles to teach others. It was not a Jewish practice to read the Bible and, being a pious Jew, Jesus would have never said otherwise. Sola scriptura is simply not scriptural. Period. It is a Lutheran invention.
This is the stone upon which those churches who claim dominance are broken
Hardly. The only breaking is in the Protestant world where the never-ending search for the "true church" results in ever-increasing "denominations" (somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-plus thousand known ones to this date).
There are indeed as many opinions as there are people but there is only one opinion in the Gospels and it is clear
Not in the Protestant world.
the authority for the salvation for each man is the responsibility of that man
No man has authority to save himself. You do have options. But salvation comes only from God.
The church had to make do with Peter thereby causing a scriptural crisis
LOL!
The notion that the Catholic, or any, church is the gatekeeper of spiritual salvation itself causes a scriptural crisis
LOL!
The only way the church has been able to pass it over was because it taught to ignorant people and babies that believe anything you tell them, unable to read and think for themselves
LOL!
The church, being the leader of the unthinking and slavishly accepting man, is the giving way to the thinking man
Yes, that's obvious, where "thinking man" is the final arbiter of what is God's and what is not, by virtue of reason. Yup, mankind will figure everything out, even God. No lack of pride and arrogance there in our "supreme" ability to understand and know everything and all by creating rationalism as a form of religion.
You can cite your traditions and clumsily interpreted scripture all you like, but the die is cast
This is hysterical!
You can argue with me all you want to, but the scriptures are crystal clear
Sometimes. IN the case of making all nations the disciples of Christ, it is crystal clear indeed. I wish you would see it too.
EC: Each Christian has the need to read Holy Scripture, yet each Christian does not also have the authority or ability to teach and interpret the words of Scripture. This privileged authority is reserved for the Church via its holy clergy and theologians, men who are instructed in and knowledgeable of the true faith.
(1) The premise of the elder's statement flies in the face of John's first letter.
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
-- 1 John 2:27 (KJV)
AND... New Living Translation:
But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you all things, and what he teaches is true - it is not a lie. So continue in what he has taught you, and continue to live in Christ.
--1 John 2:27 (NLT)
(2) The "true faith" is our personal relationship with the Lord; NOT the propagation of extraordinary religious rites or rituals for the sake of tradition.
The Lord has called us to the waters of baptism and the table of remembrance. The rest of "orthodoxy" should be cautiously approached and carefullyt examined in light of the whole (Biblical) counsel of God.
(Paul is speaking...) For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. --Acts 20:27
The good Elder missed it on this one. Perhaps in his day, the literacy rate and other cultural propensities brought him to this conclusion -- but his conclusions create a great and unintended tension in the expression of Christian faith and the Lord's clearly stated intention for the life and ministry of the Living Body.
Because God's love has drawn our hearts through Christ; Through to a great commitment to the Great Commandment, we can enthusiastically embrace the Great Commission.
It would indeed be boring here if we didn't have a steady supply of (out-of-context) textproofing.
Of course, here +John also says that he wrote this because of the people who wish to deceive the believers, so he is giving them advice not to believe the deceivers. This puts a somewhat different spin on things. The New Testament is otherwise full of refrences for the believers to hold on to the teachings and traditions of the Church elders.
Bible quotes are dime a dozen if taken out of context. If you take John 14:26, it is "clear" that we don't need anything but the Holy Spirit, not even the Bible, to know all things.
Obviously that is not so.
As for privileged authority in the Church, does not +Paul say
Not everyone in the Church can simply open the book and teach himself, just as God designated that women shall bear children and not men. It may not seem, "fair" but life is the way it is even if liberal Protestants don't understand it. :)
Your post #109, unbelievably offensive to me.
"Your post #109, unbelievably offensive to me."
Which part?
John's letter (1 John 2:27 DOESN'T say we do not need leaders and instructors -- It does clearly infer that the final authority for each believer is the indwelling Presence of the Holy Spirit.
God may orchestrate our completed spiritual instruction from many and varied sources -- church leaders, teachers/mentors, counselors, a tape series or DVD -- or a divine appointment on a street corner. But ultimately -- we are disciples of Jesus Christ; each with gifts, ministries and appointments to fulfill the high calling.
Have you ever noticed that the terms "elder" and "deacon" are never capitalized -- and remain much more descriptive terms of character and duties -- more descriptive than they are designations?
This ESPECIALLY includes the doma ministry gifts you have listed from Ephesians 4:11 -- apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teacher...
These are mature spiritual gifts, and the completely configured gifts of the lives of men and women given for the ministries of the Kingdom of God (See Luke 4/Isaiah 61)
They are not inscriptions for anyone's T-shirt:
I am a(n) _______________ (fill-in the blank)
For all the zealous defense of "orthodoxy" and tradition here -- These same apologists seem to constantly:
1. Add to (or take away from...) the canon of Biblical truth,
2. Invent/re-invent more hierarchical religious offices,
3. teaxh and/or endorse un-Biblical (occasionally CLEARLY forbidden!) spiritual practices,... AND...
4. Additional rites, ordnances rituals and traditions that remain a very long way from and sound foundation in the simple Scriptural premises of the New Covenenant.
All of which begs the original question:
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
-- John 14:9 (KJV)
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
--John 17:3 (KJV)
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7:22-23 (KJV)
Just food for thought....
I believe the Bible teaches us that knowing God.... is the whole point.
Not know = gnosis (Strong's G1108) = "head knowledge" or intellect...
BUT...
Know = ginosko (Strong's G1097) = the intimate embrace; knowing/perceiving... and being known.
If you ask our heavenly Father for a Father's hug...
...and remain quietly trusting.......
Blessings...
So many of your positions are approaching the absurd....
First -- nowhere in Biblical Scripture is the word "church" capitalized. The original ekklesia (Strong's G1577) infers those gathered in like mind and heart more than a formal organization or gathering.
The church is a living organism -- the Body of Christ -- so much, much more than a religious organization.
All disciples of Christ are part of the Body of Christ....
If that excludes some from your "organization", well so be it.
There are many who will be shouting "Lord, Lord..."
And our Master will say to those very religious folks: "Go away - I never KNEW you"
For someone who constantly makes snide remarks and sneers at sincere followers of Christ concerning the use of "your Christian Bible" -- I suggest you read it from cover to cover.
I also strongly suggest you repent of your arrogant but ignorant religiosity -- and seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness --
Thence to see if at least your perspective towards your kindred in the Lord -- if not your entire life of faith -- might change.
I think you know. Comparing Protestants to Islam of course. I know you will say you didn't, but clearly that is the impression. Many who you call protestants do not claim to be saying they did not come from the Catholic Church. I do not believe that it is the first and only Church, but that it is one of the Churches of the Lord. But I would never compare your belief to Islam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.