I thought I would try to create a thread that would be helpful for newbies on the subject of scripture and tradition. Usually when people first start investigating Orthodoxy (esp. Protestants), as they learn of some of the Traditions of the Church they begin to ask things about how this relates to scripture, or whether Tradition ever conflicts with scripture. Well, I have some quotes which I thought might be helpful. This is from George Florovsky, who makes reference to the dictum of Vincent of Lerins:
"These two aspects of faith [Scripture and Tradition], or rather these two dimensions, could never be separated from each other. Universitas and antiquitas, as well as consensio, belonged together. Neither was it an adequate criterion by itself. Antiquity as such was not yet a sufficient warrant of truth, unless a comprehensive consensus of the ancients could be satisfactorily demonstrated. And consensio as such was not conclusive, unless it could be traced back continuously to apostolic origins. Now, suggested Vincent, the true faith could be recognized by a double recourse--to Scripture and tradition ("in two ways...first clearly by the authority of the Holy Scriptures, then by the tradition of the catholic church"). This did not imply, however, that there were two sources of Christian doctrine. Indeed, the rule or canon of Scripture was perfect and self-sufficient. Why then should it be supplimented by any other authority? Why was it imperitive to invoke also "the authority of ecclesiastical understanding?" The reason was obvious. Scripture was differently interpreted by individuals, "so that one might also gain the impression that it can yield as many different meanings as there are men." To this variety of private opinions Vincent opposes the common mind of the Church, the mind of the Church catholic "so that the trend of the interpretation of the prophets and apostolic writings be directed in accordance with the rule of the ecclesiastical and catholic meaning." Traditions was not, according to Vincent, an independent instance, nor was it a complementary source of faith. Ecclesiastical understanding could not add anything to the Scripture. But it was the only means to ascertain and to disclose the true meaning of Scripture. Tradition was, in fact, the authentic interpretation of Scripture. And in this sense it was coexistive with Scripture. Tradition was actually Scripture rightly understood. And Scripture was for Vincent [as well as the ancient Church] the only, primary and ultimate, canon of Christian truth."
"Scripture belonged to the Church, and it was only in the Church, within the community of faith, that Scripture could be adequately understood and correctly interpreted. Heretics, that is, those outside of the Church, had no key to the mind of Scripture. It was not enough just to read and to quote scriptural words; the true meaning or intent of Scripture, taken as an integrated whole, had to be elicited. One had to grasp in advance the true pattern of biblical revelation, the great design of God's redemptive providence, and this could be done only by an insight of faith....But this faith was not an arbitrary and subjective insight of individuals--it was the faith of the Church, rooted in the apostolic message or kerygma, and authenticated by it. Those outside of the Church were missing precisely this basic and overarching message, the very heart of the gospel. With them Scripture was just a dead letter, or an array of disconnected passages and stories which they endeavored to arrange or rearrange according to their own pattern derived from alien sources."
Here is a really good analogy from Irenaeus about Sciptural interpretation outside the Church: "A skillful artist has used many precious jewels in making a beautiful image of a king. Now another man takes this mosaic apart, rearranging the stones so as to produce the image of a dog or a fox. Then he starts claiming, on the pretext that the gems are authentic, that this is the original picture by the first master. In fact, however, the original design has been destroyed. This is what heretics do with the Scripture. They disregard and disrupt the order and connection of the Holy Writ and dismember the truth. Words, expressions, and images are genuine; but the design is arbitrary and false."
This thread will be a work in progress. Many of you (okay, most of you
) are much better in history and theology than I. Please contribute what you can. I think this could be very helpful for people who are struggling with the relationship of Scripture and Tradition.
PS: Can someone provide a little background info. as to who Vincent of Lerins was? Florovsky did not go into any personal details about him.
"These two aspects of faith [Scripture and Tradition], or rather these two dimensions, could never be separated from each other. Universitas and antiquitas, as well as consensio, belonged together. Neither was it an adequate criterion by itself. Antiquity as such was not yet a sufficient warrant of truth, unless a comprehensive consensus of the ancients could be satisfactorily demonstrated. And consensio as such was not conclusive, unless it could be traced back continuously to apostolic origins. Now, suggested Vincent, the true faith could be recognized by a double recourse--to Scripture and tradition ("in two ways...first clearly by the authority of the Holy Scriptures, then by the tradition of the catholic church"). This did not imply, however, that there were two sources of Christian doctrine. Indeed, the rule or canon of Scripture was perfect and self-sufficient. Why then should it be supplimented by any other authority? Why was it imperitive to invoke also "the authority of ecclesiastical understanding?" The reason was obvious. Scripture was differently interpreted by individuals, "so that one might also gain the impression that it can yield as many different meanings as there are men." To this variety of private opinions Vincent opposes the common mind of the Church, the mind of the Church catholic "so that the trend of the interpretation of the prophets and apostolic writings be directed in accordance with the rule of the ecclesiastical and catholic meaning." Traditions was not, according to Vincent, an independent instance, nor was it a complementary source of faith. Ecclesiastical understanding could not add anything to the Scripture. But it was the only means to ascertain and to disclose the true meaning of Scripture. Tradition was, in fact, the authentic interpretation of Scripture. And in this sense it was coexistive with Scripture. Tradition was actually Scripture rightly understood. And Scripture was for Vincent [as well as the ancient Church] the only, primary and ultimate, canon of Christian truth."
"Scripture belonged to the Church, and it was only in the Church, within the community of faith, that Scripture could be adequately understood and correctly interpreted. Heretics, that is, those outside of the Church, had no key to the mind of Scripture. It was not enough just to read and to quote scriptural words; the true meaning or intent of Scripture, taken as an integrated whole, had to be elicited. One had to grasp in advance the true pattern of biblical revelation, the great design of God's redemptive providence, and this could be done only by an insight of faith....But this faith was not an arbitrary and subjective insight of individuals--it was the faith of the Church, rooted in the apostolic message or kerygma, and authenticated by it. Those outside of the Church were missing precisely this basic and overarching message, the very heart of the gospel. With them Scripture was just a dead letter, or an array of disconnected passages and stories which they endeavored to arrange or rearrange according to their own pattern derived from alien sources."
Here is a really good analogy from Irenaeus about Sciptural interpretation outside the Church: "A skillful artist has used many precious jewels in making a beautiful image of a king. Now another man takes this mosaic apart, rearranging the stones so as to produce the image of a dog or a fox. Then he starts claiming, on the pretext that the gems are authentic, that this is the original picture by the first master. In fact, however, the original design has been destroyed. This is what heretics do with the Scripture. They disregard and disrupt the order and connection of the Holy Writ and dismember the truth. Words, expressions, and images are genuine; but the design is arbitrary and false."
This thread will be a work in progress. Many of you (okay, most of you
) are much better in history and theology than I. Please contribute what you can. I think this could be very helpful for people who are struggling with the relationship of Scripture and Tradition.PS: Can someone provide a little background info. as to who Vincent of Lerins was? Florovsky did not go into any personal details about him.
Oblio are you saying that the symbolism of touching the ground is that God became man and came to earth? I'm a little dense about these things.
