Originally posted by Berean:
All of us, including those who hold to sola scriptura have some traditional influence. My "take" on scriptures is alwasy somewhat influnced by the authors I read and commentaries I study.
I am not sure that a Catholic and Eastern Catholic or Orthodox would describe �tradition� in the same way. Perhaps many would - but to some of us the concept of church tradition - is a bit different.
If we think �church tradition� it is something which - can be traced back to the first apostles and church. If not to the apostles themselve at least near to them that directly knew the apostles.
Often it is simple traced back to what we call the church father (and that is good enough to assume it has roots further back.
On one hand we can say that the Latin Church has a tradition of using unleavened bread - as that goes back a long way - so while we might consider that traditional to the Latin church - it is not the same thing as �tradition� which traces the use of levened bread back to the apostles.
Now I am not sure I expressed that well.
Let me try again and maybe someone else can help me say it better. Or perhaps you already knew this.
Church tradition - in the mind of a Catholic or Orthodox - is expressions which were guided by the holy spirit. A kind of grace (a kind of �force�) which is not seen but evidenced within the early church. Perhaps one might say a natural inclination to do such and such a thing in such and such a way. It is not something decreed or declared - but something which kind of naturally grew and took shape over time.
If something is �tradition� then the in-forming of it remains the same even if the outward expression changes a bit over time and through different cultures.
Over time - it becomes recognized and may even be developed into doctrine. A �something� which always was - now recognized and developed a bit into better words.
Hewre is a great example - women priests. It is solid tradition that only men may become a priest. And within the Catholic and Eastern and Orthodox churches - you will never - ever - find that unwritten tradition - violated. This surely is an example of "sacred tradition". Nothing about it in scriptures - never any offcial delarations that I know of - it is just something that the church has 'known all along'. Clearly there is at least a symbolic reason for this - but also a deeply mystical reason which - the priest being a male - is bound to the entire mystery of the sacrifice of the mass. Exactly why - we can tell you for sure - we just know (the living collective memory of the church). It has always been that way and God has his reasons.
Those things which are recognized by the church to be a part of - tradition - are in a way - a further or another - expression of the gospel (the life of the holy spirit within the church).
So while there can be some stuff about the church which is traditional in an ordinary human sense - there is also �tradition� which in itself is an expression of the Holy Spirit but not in the same way as officially defined doctrine.
I hope I have expressed it well.
Two things help us to understand scriptures better. The official declarations of the church - and tradition. In a way you might say that �tradition� trumps any particular interpretation of some portion of scriptures. Because if the scripture is understood properly it will either support tradition or not conflict with tradition. But if some interpretation of scripture flies hard against tradition and the official theology of the church - then it is easy to know that we have misunderstood that portion of scripture in some way.
Of course it is not always easy in all cases to know what the tradition may have been for something. Often - the early father argued and disagreed over stuff. And so � what tradition may have to say about something may not always be immediately - plain.
The continuity of tradition - has it own binding influence - even upon the heads of the churches. For example - the Pope of Rome can not just think up a decree and put it into law - if it goes against clear - tradition of the church.
And so �tradition� in the church is like a vibrant life of the Holy Spirit - in the members of the church. And that vibrant life - is recorded (in part) by scriptures but just as well may be absent in a clear way from scriptures and recorded in other documents and history of the church.
Scriptures are secondary to tradition in this way: scriptures records only a partial of the life of the holy spirit within the church. For example - nowhere in scriptures - is a full description made of the Liturgy that the church used and developed. That Liturgy is recorded - elsewhere - and there is evidence of it as it was done - in scripture. No where in the NT does it give a full description of the ceremony of Baptism that the apostles performed and passed to their successors - it was a bit of an elaborate ceremony - but knowing about it was reserved for church members and it was not discussed in public least it be misunderstood.
So, as hard as it is to express - there can be things which are traditional in the church (done for a long time) but there are also things - of tradition - which means they have thread which can be traced back to its roots at the earliest times recorded - of the church. And that record of them need not necessarily be scriptures - but may be just simply �known to be true all along� (the living memory of the church alive in its members) or evidenced in other legitimate writing pertaining to church matters.
If Stephanos I or Fr Gregory is read this - they could probably say it better than I.
I hope this helps and I apologies if it was un-necessary.
