Stump the Priest: Dogma

Question: "How do we know whether or not something is dogma if it was not specifically affirmed by an Ecumenical council?"

We have to first consider the question of what we mean by dogma. Usually, in our time, when we speak of dogma we are thinking of formal proclamations of official doctrine, however the word has a wider range of meaning. The word is used by both Philo and Josephus in reference to both philosophical principles and imperial decrees (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2:231). St. Basil the Great used it with reference to the internal teachings of the Church, in contrast with the public preaching of the Church which was intended for those both inside and outside of the Church. He was in a controversy with a group of people who denied that the Holy Spirit was a distinct person of the Godhead, and had argued that this was taught by the doxology: "Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit." His opponents countered that the doxology was not found in Scripture, and so he responded: 

"Of the dogmas and preachings [kerygmas] kept safely in the Church, we have some from written doctrine, and some from tradition handed down to us by the Apostles we have received in mystery, both of which have the same validity and force as regards the piety (i.e., the religion); accordingly, no one gainsays these, at least no one that has any experience at all in ecclesiastical matters. For if we should undertake to discard the unwritten traditions of customs, on the score that they have no great force, we should unwittingly damage the Gospel in vital parts.... (D. Cummings, trans., The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church: The Compilation of the Holy Canons, Saints Nicodemus and Agapius (West Brookfield, MA: The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1983), p. 853f [emphasis added]).from Canon 91, which is taken from his treatise On the Holy Spirit, 66-67).

St. Basil goes on to cite as examples of the unwritten tradition, the making of the sign of the Cross, baptism by triple immersion, praying while facing east, and the way that the Liturgy is served as examples of unwritten tradition that even the heretics he was arguing with did not dispute.

So while dogma, in the sense of official ecumenical decrees has the advantage of being clearly binding upon all in the Church, St. Basil says that the internal teachings of the Church, which have not, at least as of yet, been the subject of official decrees are none the less authoritative. For example, rejecting the use of Christian icons was always heretical, long before the Seventh Ecumenical Council weighed in on the matter. The only difference is that someone who disputed this prior to that Council might be less culpable for their errors than they would have been after it. And, as a matter of fact, holding a heretical opinion is not necessarily a grave personal sin, if one does so in ignorance -- but it certainly becomes one, if such a person refuses the correction of the Church.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council, when it pronounced a series of anathemas directed at the Iconoclasts, concluded with one final anathema:

"If anyone rejects any ecclesiastical tradition written or unwritten, let him be anathema!" (Richard Price, trans., The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), vol. 2 (Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 2018), p. 660).

Obviously, not all traditions would be included here. One often hears that there are big "T" traditions, and small "t" traditions, and depending on how one applies this distinction, it could be useful, but it certainly has been used to discount legitimate Church tradition. Broadly speaking there are four kinds of traditions in the Church (apart from Scripture itself, which is part of Tradition, even though we usually speak of it as being distinct from traditions preserved outside of Scripture): Apostolic Tradition, Ecclesiastical Tradition, traditions which may or may not be true, and local traditions, which are either local practice or local customs. Apostolic Traditions are without doubt binding and authoritative. The same is true for Ecclesiastical Tradition, when we are speaking of Traditions embraced by the whole Church. 

When we refer to local practices or customs with the word "tradition," we are not talking about either Apostolic or Ecclesiastical Tradition. These may have some authority on the local level, but that is another matter. Also, we sometimes might speak of something being "a tradition" in the sense that this is something that has been handed down, but not in a way that we can attribute a great deal of authority to. For example, there is a tradition that St. Joseph of Arimathea and Christ visited England when Christ was a young man. Such a tradition may or may not be true, but no one is required to believe that this tradition is true.

The Greek word for “tradition” is paradosis – which, though translated differently in some Protestant versions of the Bible, is the same word used when referring negatively to the false teachings of the Pharisees (Mark 7:3, 5, 8), and also when referring positively to authoritative Christian teaching (1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6). The word itself literally means "what is transmitted" or “what is passed on.” The key difference between the traditions of the Pharisees and that of the Church, is the source. Christ made clear what the source of the traditions of the Pharisees was, when He called them "the traditions of men" (Mark 7:8). St. Paul on the other hand, in reference to Christian Tradition states, "I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things and hold fast to the traditions [paradoseis] just as I delivered [paredoka, a verbal form of paradosis] them to you" (1 Corinthians 11:2). But where did he get these traditions in the first place? "I received from the Lord that which I delivered [paredoka] to you" (1 Corinthians 11:23). This is what the Orthodox Church refers to when it speaks of the Apostolic Tradition – "the Faith once delivered [paradotheise] unto the saints" (Jude 3). Its source is Christ, it was delivered personally by Him to the Apostles through all that He said and did, which if it were all written down, "the world itself could not contain the books that should be written" (John 21:25). The Apostles delivered this knowledge to the entire Church, and the Church, being the repository of this treasure thus became "the pillar and ground of the Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

Ecclesiastical Traditions are rooted in Christ's promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16:18), that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all Truth (John 16:13), as well as the power Christ gave to the Apostles to bind and to loose (Matthew 18:18) -- and, of course, we do not believe that any of this was limited to the original apostles, but the apostolic ministry of the Church has continued through their successors. Furthermore, St. Paul tells us that the Church is the Body of Christ, and Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:22-33), and so we believe that it is impossible that the entire Church could fall into error, or affirm anything to be true which is in fact false. This understanding of the Church is not some late development either, but rather you find it clearly expressed in the Ante-Nicene father, St. Cyprian of Carthage, in his Treatise on the Unity of the Church.

So if we are talking about a teaching that the Church has universally affirmed, either in Councils, or simply by universal acceptance, it is binding on all.

Stump the Priest: Tradition?

Question: "What's the working definition of "tradition" as far as the Church is concerned?" 

The English word "tradition" comes from the Latin word "traditio," which corresponds closely with the Greek word we find in the New Testament, "paradosis". The word itself literally means "what is transmitted." It is the same word used when referring negatively to the false teachings of the Pharisees (e.g. Mark 7:3), and also when referring to authoritative Christian teaching (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15). So what makes the traditions of the Pharisees false and that of the Church true? The source! Christ made clear what was the source of the traditions of the Pharisees when He called them "the traditions of men" (Mark 7:8). Saint Paul on the other hand, in reference to Christian Tradition states, "I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things and hold fast to the traditions [paradoseis] just as I delivered [paredoka, a verbal form of paradosis] them to you" (1 Corinthians 11:2), but where did he get these traditions in the first place? "I received from the Lord that which I delivered [paredoka] to you" (1 Corinthians 11:23). This is what the Orthodox Church refers to when it speaks of the Apostolic Tradition — "the Faith once delivered [paradotheise] unto the saints" (Jude 3). Its source is Christ, it was delivered personally by Him to the Apostles through all that He said and did, which if it all were all written down, "the world itself could not contain the books that should be written" (John 21:25). The Apostles delivered this knowledge to the entire Church, and the Church, being the repository of this treasure thus became "the pillar and ground of the Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

Within the Church, we use the word "tradition" in a number of senses. Though we often speak of Scripture and Tradition as being two different things, there is a very real sense in Which Scripture is also Tradition. Much of Scripture existed in oral form before it was written down, and in some cases the gaps or hundreds and even thousands of years -- and so prior to being written down, these were oral traditions. Furthermore, Tradition has passed on what should be recognized as Scripture, Tradition has passed on the meaning of Scripture, and Tradition has in fact passed on the very text of the Scripture.

After Scripture, Apostolic Tradition is without doubt the highest form of Scripture, and it is from Apostolic Tradition that we derive the core of our liturgical and canonical practices, and even such things as making the sign of the Cross, facing east at prayer, and baptism by triple immersion, as St. Basil the Great points out in his treatise On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 27.

There are also what we could call Ecclesistical Traditions, which are not directly based on Apostolic Tradition, but which have been affirmed by the universal Church, and so are no less trustworthy. Such Traditions would include the canons and decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, as well as the canons of local councils and Fathers of the Church that have been affirmed by the Ecumenical Councils. This would also include universally received Liturgical Traditions.

Then there are what you could call local traditions -- and here we are getting into traditions that could also be categorized as "customs." For example, in the Russian Church, it is the tradition to kiss the chalice after you receive Holy Communion. In the Greek Church, they do not kiss the chalice. Both of these practices are motivated by a common piety regarding the Eucharist, but are expressed in opposite  ways. Neither custom is superior to the other, but when in Rome, one should do as the Romans do, and in the context in which one custom prevails or the other, one should respect that practice. But clearly, we are not talking about infallible traditions of the universal Church.

There is a popular distinction that is sometimes made between "big T" traditions" and "little t" traditions. I think this distinction is not far off, so long as one is careful about what they label as "big T" or "little t" traditions. I personally don't use this distinction, because I have too often seen people try to dismiss universally received traditions as "little t" traditions. 

Another important distinction that should be understood is that there is a big difference between saying "The Tradition of the Church is..." and "There is a tradition...." For example the Tradition of the Church teaches us that we should baptize by a triple immersion, and that is not something that you can either take or leave. There is a tradition that Christ travelled to England as a boy, which may or may not be true. 

So a tradition can either be a good and binding tradition, a bad and erroneous tradition, or a good local custom, but with a relative authority. The key questions are, what kind of tradition are we speaking about, what is its origins, and how universally received is the tradition in question? But when we are speaking of Apostolic Tradition, or Traditions which have been universally received, these are Traditions that we are to hold fast to, just as St. Paul tells us (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

See Also: Stump the Priest: Are Ecumenical Councils Infallible?

Stump the Priest: Obedience to the Church

"Is an Orthodox Christian obliged to follow all that the Church teaches, or is there some leeway that is left to individual choice?"

If the Church clearly teaches something, then an Orthodox Christian that wishes to go to heaven should endeavor to embrace that teaching and obey it with all their heart and soul.

Christ taught us:

"He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me" (Luke 10:16).

And so obedience to the Church is the equivalent of obedience to Christ. And so, for example, when the Scriptures, as understood and explained by the Church, teach us us that something is either forbidden or obligatory, that should settle the matter.

Further, the Seventh Ecumenical Council declared:

"If anyone breaks any ecclesiastical tradition, written or unwritten, let him be anathema."

But of course this applies to what the Church actually does teach. When it comes to matters that are debatable, to the extent that the debate has any real merit, there could be room for reasonable disagreement. So if there is a question about what the Church teaches, it needs to be examined on its own merits. However, often people try to raise questions about matters that there really is no question about, and so if you catch yourself grasping at straws in attempt to find a justification to ignore something that you know the Church really does teach, you should know that we ultimately will have to give an account to the God who knows whether or not we are just making excuses because we don't what to hear the Church.

Stump the Priest: Authority in Ancient Israel

Question: "What were the sources of doctrine for the Israelites in the Old Testament? Was it Tradition, or Scripture?"

We are told by St. Paul that God,"at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets..." (Hebrews 1:1). And so there were a number of ways that God revealed Himself and taught the people of the Old Testament, and this changed over time.

At various times in the Old Testament there were instances of direct revelation, in which God communicated directly with specific people. This was of course not something that happened everyday throughout the Old Testament. The Old Testament focuses on these instances, and so it is easy to get the impression that God was constantly working wonders and speaking to His prophets, but a more careful examination will show that these instances punctuated much longer periods of time in which this was not happening. For example, from the time of the death of the Patriarch Joseph, until the time of Moses, there are no recorded instances of any new revelation... and this was a period of nearly 400 years.

So what guided the faithful between the periods of direct revelation? Tradition. The book of Genesis, for example, records God's revelation of Himself to Adam and Eve. But thousands of years would have passed before these things were written down. They were preserved by oral tradition by those who were faithful... and in turn, we believe that the Holy Spirit guided the preservation of these oral traditions. Eventually things began to be written down, and over time books of the Old Testament came to be recognized as authoritative and inspired records of these traditions. However, because these revelations were yet incomplete, God continued to provide new direct revelation through His prophets to correct the errors of the people, and to continue to prepare them for the coming of the Messiah.

But what about the "traditions of men" that Christ condemned in the Gospels? Of course, not all traditions are of equal weight, but if there was no reliable Tradition, we would have no reliable Scripture. The books of Scripture were produced by Tradition, and they were preserved by Tradition. We have no original copies of any books of the Bible. However, we believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the Tradition that formed Scripture, and we believe the Holy Spirit has preserved the Scripture as well. It was also by Tradition that the Israelites knew which books of the Bible were inspired, and which ones were not. The problem with the traditions of men that Christ condemned is that they were "of men" and were a distortion of the authentic Tradition inspired by God. But clearly there had to be an authentic Tradition, preserved by the faithful (which at times was only a small remnant, but which continuously passed the Tradition on).

An example of this can be seen in the worship of the Old Testament Tabernacle, and later in the Temple. In the Law of Moses, there is a lot of detail given about Israelite worship, but primarily what is described was for the benefit of the people. Little detail is given about how sacrifices were actually performed -- which for non-liturgical Protestants is not so obvious, but for those who are part of a liturgical Tradition, and who have experience performing the services, we know that even books written for priests, with extensive rubrics still require some oral tradition to guide the priests on how to actually do them. There is almost nothing of that sort in the Law of Moses -- probably to guard against those who were not priests attempting to illicitly perform them. And yet, when two of Aaron's sons violated God's instructions on how worship was to be done, they were struct dead by God (Leviticus 10:1-7 -- see also "Does God Care How We Worship?"). We are not told in Scripture exactly what Nadab and Abihu were supposed to have done, nor exactly what they did wrong, only that they they offered "strange fire" which the Lord had not commanded them to do. Clearly, the priests knew what they were supposed to do, and this was by Tradition that was not written down... at least not in any text that became part of Scripture, and yet it was authoritative enough to be the cause of killing two priests who failed to abide by it.

So to answer the question of what sources were used by the Israelites for doctrine, we would have to specify which point in their history to more fully answer that question. But after the Old Testament Scriptures began to be written down, it was not a question of Scripture or Tradition, but of Tradition that was both written and unwritten.

For more information see:

Sola Scriptura, by Fr. John Whiteford