Why is Tradition reliable?

[Sultan Of Swing]

I posted this in the Oriental Orthodox forum to get their views on this but I thought I should open this up to everyone really, Catholics and Orthodox especially.

Taking the Chalcedonian schism into account, why is tradition trusted so much and assumed to not change over time?

The Chalcedonian bishops thought they were preserving tradition. The non-Chalcedonian bishops thought they were also preserving tradition.

As someone who was formerly contemplating Catholicism but is now Protestant, doesn't the Bible seem like the only infallible source of doctrine?

Why trust tradition when we have these schisms, it seems like doctrines can change over time, there is no divine preservation but rather we must heed Jesus' and Paul's warnings to look out for false teachers.

 

[PaladinValer]

Um, as Anglicans, we accept Holy Tradition as authoritative as well.

"Holy Tradition" is exceptionally poorly misunderstood on all sides. It isn't "whatever is orally passed outside Holy Scripture." What it actually is, is a continuous historical interpretation of Holy Scripture and written record of belief that is not in conflict with Holy Scripture, upheld continuously by universal acclaim, be it by Ecumenical Council, regional/diocesan synods and councils throughout, or at least by non-condemnation by the same and general agreement throughout.

A prime example would be the Didache, whose teachings our Anglican Communion unreservedly accepts, even though it isn't Holy Scripture.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Um, as Anglicans, we accept Holy Tradition as authoritative as well.

"Holy Tradition" is exceptionally poorly misunderstood on all sides. It isn't "whatever is orally passed outside Holy Scripture." What it actually is, is a continuous historical interpretation of Holy Scripture and written record of belief that is not in conflict with Holy Scripture, upheld continuously by universal acclaim, be it by Ecumenical Council, regional/diocesan synods and councils throughout, or at least by non-condemnation by the same and general agreement throughout.

A prime example would be the Didache, whose teachings our Anglican Communion unreservedly accepts, even though it isn't Holy Scripture.

As Anglicans, we accept Holy Tradition as well?

That's news to me, I'm sure you are aware of the great variety between parishes within the Anglican Communion.

I could bring up the Westminster Confession and assert you must be a Calvinist. Are you?

 

[PaladinValer]

As Anglicans, we accept Holy Tradition as well?

Yes.

That's news to me, I'm sure you are aware of the great variety between parishes within the Anglican Communion.

Some are more orthodox than others, but yes. The diversity, however, has limits.

I could bring up the Westminster Confession and assert you must be a Calvinist. Are you?

They aren't Anglican; the Westminster Confession was a product of Nonconformist Puritans and was never adopted by Anglicans. It was created by the group that persecuted the English Church, murdered and martyred its Primate of All England and the King, and banned its liturgy.

 

[Liberasit]

As Anglicans, we accept Holy Tradition as well?

That's news to me, I'm sure you are aware of the great variety between parishes within the Anglican Communion.

I could bring up the Westminster Confession and assert you must be a Calvinist. Are you?

It was news to me when I first read it here.

Welcome to CF, Sultan

Have you encountered the Anglican forum, Scripture Tradition Reason?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes.

Some are more orthodox than others, but yes. The diversity, however, has limits.

They aren't Anglican; the Westminster Confession was a product of Nonconformist Puritans and was never adopted by Anglicans. It was created by the group that persecuted the English Church, murdered and martyred its Primate of All England and the King, and banned its liturgy.

It seems your understanding of the Westminster Assembly is somewhat flawed. The Westminster Assembly is part and parcel of the history of the Church of England. Here is a very brief synopsis of its history from Wikipedia.

The Westminster Confession of Faith is a Reformed confession of faith. Drawn up by the 1646 Westminster Assembly as part of the Westminster Standards to be a confession of the Church of England, it became and remains the "subordinate standard" of doctrine in the Church of Scotland, and has been influential within Presbyterian churches worldwide.


In 1643, the English Parliament called upon "learned, godly and judicious Divines", to meet at Westminster Abbey in order to provide advice on issues of worship, doctrine, government and discipline of the Church of England. Their meetings, over a period of five years, produced the confession of faith, as well as a Larger Catechism and a Shorter Catechism. For more than three centuries, various churches around the world have adopted the confession and the catechisms as their standards of doctrine, subordinate to the Bible.

 

[PaladinValer]

It seems your understanding of the Westminster Assembly is somewhat flawed. The Westminster Assembly is part and parcel of the history of the Church of England. Here is a very brief synopsis of its history from Wikipedia.

The Westminster Confession of Faith is a Reformed confession of faith. Drawn up by the 1646 Westminster Assembly as part of the Westminster Standards to be a confession of the Church of England, it became and remains the "subordinate standard" of doctrine in the Church of Scotland, and has been influential within Presbyterian churches worldwide.


In 1643, the English Parliament called upon "learned, godly and judicious Divines", to meet at Westminster Abbey in order to provide advice on issues of worship, doctrine, government and discipline of the Church of England. Their meetings, over a period of five years, produced the confession of faith, as well as a Larger Catechism and a Shorter Catechism. For more than three centuries, various churches around the world have adopted the confession and the catechisms as their standards of doctrine, subordinate to the Bible.

And it says NOTHING about its adoption within the Anglican Church but does say its participants were all Puritans and it was an attempt to rid the Church of its episcopal polity and for political reasons as well.

Please read your proofs better, because that article proves my view correct.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

And it says NOTHING about its adoption within the Anglican Church but does say its participants were all Puritans and it was an attempt to rid the Church of its episcopal polity and for political reasons as well.

Please read your proofs better, because that article proves my view correct.

Is Reformed (historical) Anglicanism non-existant to you? The Anglican world doesn't revolve around the high-churchers.

I know of a few Anglican churches here in that hold quite strongly to the Confession, it was adopted by a number of churches.

 

[PaladinValer]

Is Reformed (historical) Anglicanism non-existant to you? The Anglican world doesn't revolve around the high-churchers.

My argument wasn't based on churchship. I suggest actually reading some of the great theologians, like Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Piety sometime. He's the guy who came up with the term "Scripture, Tradition, Reason" which is fundamental to real Anglican theology.

Furthermore, my actual argument was never addressed in your posts yet, so please give the respect of doing so.

I know of a few Anglican churches here in that hold quite strongly to the Confession, it was adopted by a number of churches.

It isn't Anglican to do so, so what they think means absolutely nothing. Popularity doesn't mean correctness. That's called the "Fallacy of Appealing to the Masse," and even moreso when it simply ignores the historical facts presented.

Now, can my actual point about the Didache be addressed?

Try real, historic Anglicanism a try. The one that Charles I was martyred for. The one Hooker promoted and defended.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

My argument wasn't based on churchship. I suggest actually reading some of the great theologians, like Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Piety sometime. He's the guy who came up with the term "Scripture, Tradition, Reason" which is fundamental to real Anglican theology.

It isn't Anglican to do so, so what they think means absolutely nothing. Popularity doesn't mean correctness. That's called the "Fallacy of Appealing to the Masse," and even moreso when it simply ignores the historical facts presented.

Could you give an official source from the Church of England or similar that says what is and isn't Anglican, aside from your own opinions?

Now, can my actual point about the Didache be addressed?

I don't see much to address, documents written in accordance with the Scriptures are naturally going to be accepted, sure. I'm not labelling the writings of the church fathers as all false or bad.

Try real, historic Anglicanism a try. The one that Charles I was martyred for. The one Hooker promoted and defended.

As above, you'd have to show me a source from the Church of England or similar that tells us what "real, historic Anglicanism" is.

I guess you must accept the Thirty Nine Articles at least then, and so you are Calvinist?

 

[PaladinValer]

Could you give an official source from the Church of England or similar that says what is and isn't Anglican, aside from your own opinions?

See the below.

I don't see much to address, documents written in accordance with the Scriptures are naturally going to be accepted, sure. I'm not labelling the writings of the church fathers as all false or bad.

That dodges the point: The Didache is not Holy Scripture, nor are the practices in it specifically found in Holy Scripture either, yet Anglicanism accepts without question those baptismal practices and its Baptismal Theology accepts it, which means doctrine. So, how does that square with your assertion that Holy Tradition isn't authoritative?

As above, you'd have to show me a source from the Church of England or similar that tells us what "real, historic Anglicanism" is.

Is there being suggested that Richard Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Piety, which is arguably the Anglican theological work of his generation and is foundational to our church and its theology, is not a source of merit?

If not, then we're no longer discussing actual historic Anglicanism but a very new thing.

That's historical fact, not personal opinion. So, let's base things on proven historical documentation.

I guess you must accept the Thirty Nine Articles at least then, and so you are Calvinist?

Calvinism is rejected in the 39 Articles. The actual Article on Predestination says nothing about a predestination to damnation, and the argument that its second paragraph's second half implies it is pretty dodgy especially given its third paragraph, which is rather blatant about personal responsibility, which is rather Arminian. We cannot read the Articles only in little sections within or an article alone but examine the document as it is: whole and in light of all other circumstances.

And for the record, I reject both Arminianism and Calvinism. Theosis appears to be not only acceptable to the Articles, but is historically the ancient and only continuous theology on the subject.

 

[Albion]

As someone who was formerly contemplating Catholicism but is now Protestant, doesn't the Bible seem like the only infallible source of doctrine?

You'd think.

Why trust tradition when we have these schisms, it seems like doctrines can change over time, there is no divine preservation but rather we must heed Jesus' and Paul's warnings to look out for false teachers.

That is indeed one reason for trusting Scripture, but it may be that the weakness of tradition is something else. It's not so much that it changes over time, and even the proponents of it will admit as much. Rather, it's that the theological system that is built upon traditions and is called "Sacred Tradition" or "Holy Tradition" doesn't actually follow tradition despite the protestations to that effect and, of course, the name.

As a matter of fact, Sacred Tradition is a hit and miss selection of scattered opinions and folklore upon which is thrown the cloak of "divine revelation." IF it were as I was once taught, that the church holds to that which "has always been believed, everywhere, and by all," we'd have something that could rightly be deemed traditional.

I would still question whether that makes it divine revelation, but at least there would be some assurance of continuity which we'd expect from God's truth. But it isn't that way at all, and each "Catholic" church body, while claiming tradition, has its own version of what that alleged tradition is telling the church.

Incidentally, Anglicanism is not included in the above, because tradition--while openly and famously heralded by Anglicans--is to be used in order to comprehend Scripture. Scripture is the ultimate determiner of doctrine. It is not a separate and second source of "divine revelation" equal to Scripture...and that's what Tradition means in the RC, EO, OO, and other such churches.

 

[barryatlake]

Albion, are there verses in the Bible that point to people being under the authority of the church? Yes or no?

 

[Liberasit]

You'd think.


Incidentally, Anglicanism is not included in the above, because tradition--while openly and famously heralded by Anglicans--is to be used in order to comprehend Scripture. Scripture is the ultimate determiner of doctrine. It is not a separate and second source of "divine revelation" equal to Scripture...and that's what Tradition means in the RC, EO, OO, and other such churches.

It's behind Reason as well.

 

[Thekla]

Incidentally, Anglicanism is not included in the above, because tradition--while openly and famously heralded by Anglicans--is to be used in order to comprehend Scripture. Scripture is the ultimate determiner of doctrine. It is not a separate and second source of "divine revelation" equal to Scripture...and that's what Tradition means in the RC, EO, OO, and other such churches.

Just a correction: the bolded statement is not accurate, at least for the EO (as I do not pretend to know fully the understanding of other faith expressions).

Tradition includes Scripture; it is everything received from Christ and the apostles and is (therefore) also the continuing activity of the Holy Spirit in the concretized living-out of the Trinitarian existence and faith in the koinonia (this latter point is demonstrated in the book of Acts, which is also known as the book of the Holy Spirit).

The op mentioned Chalcedon, certainly a valuable question.

The matter is a bit more complex than typically presented owing to a number of factors including localized understandings of language/terminology, local practice (as each location reflects also the culture, as culture is both the store of a society's value and manner, and the way through which we learn).

To wit, iirc the Alexandrian representatives would not vote without first consulting their pope so left without voting at all.

The Council had determined the issue by repeating the teachings of Cyril of Alexandria, then noting the agreement of Leo's statement with Cyril's.

Beneath this matter, there was also the variety in which the common language of the text was understood (though both Constantinople and Alexandria shared a language, it should be obvious to anyone who knows English and lives in the States, that the particular understanding of terminology varies by location).

Additionally, Ecumenical Councils tend to evaluate statements not only by their immediate meaning, but also by the impact of the meaning 'downstream' so to speak; the statement proposed by the Alexandrian party may have thus been fine in the immediate meaning but the logical extended expansion of the statement was understood to have flaws in the 'downstream' implications.

Finally, there was an historic rivalry between Alexandria and Constantinople which exacerbated the problem.

As communication has become sometimes easier (logistically) in the modern era, a number of talks and investigations of the matter have been ongoing. Among the EO, various well regarded persons (the late fr. John Romanides, fr. John McGuckin, etc.) have weighed in on the matter and found the disagreement to be less serious than previously considered (ie, the linguistic misunderstandings can be addressed); thus, talks will continue.

Talks with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church have tmk been concluded and it is now a matter of time for full communion to resume. Re: the Coptic Church, there are ongoing relations on the local level, for example joint youth events ongoing in both Europe and to the east.

 

[Albion]

Just a correction: the bolded statement is not accurate, at least for the EO (as I do not pretend to know fully the understanding of other faith expressions).

If so, I am glad that you took the time to correct the record. It is true of the Roman Catholic view of Tradition, however, and I was thinking that, because the EO laud Tradition just as strongly as the RC, the whole concept--if not the conclusion vis-a-vis every specific doctrine--was the same.

Tradition includes Scripture; it is everything received from Christ and the apostles and is (therefore) also the continuing activity of the Holy Spirit in the concretized living-out of the Trinitarian existence and faith in the koinonia (this latter point is demonstrated in the book of Acts, which is also known as the book of the Holy Spirit).

Well, yes, that would apply to both RC and EO and is what I was saying sounds great in principle but doesn't work that way in reality.

It's appealing to claim that all of Tradition is "received from Christ and the apostles" except that we don't know everything that was received from either of them, especially in the case of the apostles, and we ought not make doctrine on the basis of speculation.

 

[barryatlake]

Albion, any proposed tradition that contradicts Scripture is a false tradition and must be rejected, but this does not make apostolic Tradition inferior to Scripture. It is also true that any proposed scripture which contradicts apostolic Tradition is a false scripture and must be rejected.

This was, in fact, one of the ways in which the canon of the New Testament was selected. Any scriptures which contained doctrines which were contrary to the Traditions the apostles had handed down to the Church Fathers were rejected.

From the Gnostic gospels (such as the Gospel of Thomas) and Marcion's edited version of Luke's Gospel and Paul's epistles, there were a lot of heretical writings proposed by different groups for inclusion in the New Testament. But the early Church fathers said, "No, this contradicts the faith that was handed down to us from the apostles. Thus it must be a forged or otherwise non-inspired writing." [ source; " Crossing the Tiber " by Stephen K. Ray ]

So while a tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic. There is complementarity here; one mode of teaching is not automatically inferior to the other.

 

[Thekla]

If so, I am glad that you took the time to correct the record. It is true of the Roman Catholic view of Tradition, however, and I was thinking that, because the EO laud Tradition just as strongly as the RC, the whole concept--if not the conclusion vis-a-vis every specific doctrine--was the same.

We do laud Tradition. It is, in fact, how we received the Holy Scriptures; there was first the Church (revealed at Pentecost) and then from within the community/ekklesia (the Trinitarian concretization of the Truth received and lived as community). From within this Church and by the Holy Spirit the New Testament Scriptures (and other graphe/writings) were "penned".

Well, yes, that would apply to both RC and EO and is what I was saying sounds great in principle but doesn't work that way in reality.

It's appealing to claim that all of Tradition is "received from Christ and the apostles" except that we don't know everything that was received from either of them, especially in the case of the apostles, and we ought not make doctrine on the basis of speculation.

As was Christ's garment of one cloth, so also Tradition and the body of Christ are "seamless" - some of the threads are Scripture, but some are not. Thus, for example, one cannot exhaust the definition of worship as the words spoken at the Liturgy.

The modern standards are not but anachronistically applied to the mindset of an earlier era.

However, the EO does not have a "speculative theology"; in fact, this is one of the EOs disagreements with the RC (and western theology in general).

 

[barryatlake]

Albion,how do you know the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit - did the Bible tell you?

You can't answer because the Bible does not say such a thing - you have to rely upon tradition, tradition that you don't believe in.

How are we to know the spirit of Truth from the spirit of error - by reading the Bible? For example,how do you know the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit - did the Bible tell you?
You can't answer because the Bible does not say such a thing - you have to rely upon tradition, tradition that you don't believe in.

 

[Albion]

Um, as Anglicans, we accept Holy Tradition as authoritative as well.

"Holy Tradition" is exceptionally poorly misunderstood on all sides. It isn't "whatever is orally passed outside Holy Scripture." What it actually is, is a continuous historical interpretation of Holy Scripture and written record of belief that is not in conflict with Holy Scripture, upheld continuously by universal acclaim, be it by Ecumenical Council, regional/diocesan synods and councils throughout, or at least by non-condemnation by the same and general agreement throughout.

If only it were, actually, "upheld continuously."

As is hinted at in the OP, every "Catholic" church has its own selection process and considers a different set of facts extracted from history to be the final and correct answer. Obviously, they can't all be right. But Scripture is essentially agreed upon by both Catholics and Protestants, even if interpretations differ. That's important...the Bible is there for all and all consider it to be God's word. With "Tradition" there is no real standard except that someone must have thought of it somewhere along the line.