On Church Tradition #
What is Church Tradition? #
Church Tradition refers to what Christian piety holds, having received it from the holy apostles through written and oral instruction. As the Apostle Paul says to the Corinthians: “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions, as I delivered them to you” (1 Corinthians 11:2). And to the Thessalonians, he exhorts: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
Is written tradition in the epistles of the holy apostles preferable to their oral teachings? #
The preference of tradition depends on the importance of the subject matter, not on the manner in which it was transmitted. Certainly, the tradition concerning faith in the Holy Trinity is more preferable than the tradition regarding the order of Christian life. However, we are equally obligated to observe apostolic traditions, regardless of whether they were transmitted in writing or orally. Basil the Great speaks on this matter: “Of the dogmas and teachings preserved in the Church, some we have from written instruction, and others we have received from apostolic tradition, passed down in mystery, and both have equal force in regard to piety. And no one will contradict this, even if they are only slightly familiar with the Church’s regulations. For if we attempt to reject unwritten customs as if they have no significant force, we will imperceptibly damage the Gospel in important aspects or rather reduce the proclamation to mere words without substance. For example, before all else, I shall mention the first and most common practice: that those who place their hope in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ are signed with the image of the cross—who taught this by writing? Who taught us through writing to face east in prayer? Who among the saints left us the words of invocation at the consecration of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we do not rely solely on the words mentioned by the Apostle or the Gospel, but we also pronounce others before and after these, as having great power in the mystery, having received them from unwritten teaching. We also bless the water of baptism and the oil of anointing, and even the person being baptized—by what scripture? Is it not by tradition, which is silent and secret? And what more? Even the anointing with oil itself—what written word taught it? From where comes the triple immersion of the person? And the other things that occur at baptism, such as renouncing Satan and his angels—what scripture is this taken from? Is it not from this unpublicized and unspeakable teaching that our fathers preserved in silence, being rightly taught to guard the sanctity of the mystery?” (91st Rule, Full Translations). And further in the same rule, he says: “But I do not have enough time to recount all the unwritten mysteries of the Church.” And concerning the reverence for unwritten Church traditions, he states at the end of the 92nd Rule: “The ancient dogmas, in some way, inspire reverence, presenting in their antiquity, as it were, a venerable appearance similar to that of gray hair.”
Does the Holy Church have the right to abolish its traditions? #
In the context of this question, the term “Church” refers to the faithful and pious people. However, the people can only be called faithful and pious if they faithfully observe and properly honor all the traditions of the holy apostles and the holy fathers who preceded them. From this, it becomes evident that the faithful people do not have the right to abolish the traditions of the holy apostles and the holy fathers. Not only does the ordinary laity lack the freedom to do so, but even the clergy are not granted such liberty. The Seventh Ecumenical Council attests that those who have received the priestly dignity are guided by and bear witness to the established rules and decrees, which we willingly accept, singing with the God-speaking David to the Lord God: “I have rejoiced in the way of Your testimonies, as much as in all riches” (Psalm 118:14). And also: “You have commanded Your testimonies in righteousness, and they endure forever; give me understanding, and I shall live” (Psalm 118:144). And if the prophetic voice commands us to keep the testimonies of God forever and live in them, it is clear that they remain unbreakable and unshakable. For the God-seer Moses also says: “You shall not add to it, nor take from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32). And the divine Apostle Peter, rejoicing in them, exclaims: “Into which things angels desire to look” (1 Peter 1:12). Likewise, Paul proclaims: “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” (Galatians 1:8). Since this is true and attested to us, let us rejoice in this as if someone had found great treasure. We accept the divine rules with delight and hold fast to the entire and unshakable decree of these rules, laid down by the all-glorious apostles, the holy trumpets of the Spirit, by the six holy Ecumenical Councils, by local councils convened for the issuance of such commandments, and by our holy fathers. For they all, being enlightened by the same Spirit, established what is beneficial. And those whom they anathematize, we also anathematize; those whom they depose, we also depose; those whom they excommunicate, we also excommunicate; and those whom they subject to penances, we also subject to penances (1st Rule of the complete translation).
Moreover, the 71st chapter of the Kormchaia does not allow even the councils of bishops to abolish church traditions, stating: “Following the previous holy councils, that council is holy; but not following the previous holy councils, it is not holy, but rather defiled and rejected” (Kormchaia, Chapter 71, leaf 641: and Taktikon, leaf 2). Therefore, if neither the laity, nor the clergy, nor even the councils of bishops have the right to abolish church traditions, it is evident that the Holy Church of Christ can never abolish its traditions. Instead, it will always follow the Apostle Paul, who said: “But as God is true, our word toward you was not Yes and No. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us—even by me and Silvanus and Timothy—was not Yes and No, but in Him was Yes. For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us” (2 Corinthians 1:18-20).
If the traditions of the holy apostles are preserved without alteration, why, then, are the liturgies of Basil the Great and John Chrysostom celebrated today, rather than the apostolic liturgies? And why is the most holy Body of Christ given to people not in their hands, as Christ gave it to the apostles, but directly into their mouths with a spoon? And why do our liturgical books—Triodion, Octoechos, and Menaion—have authors not from the apostolic times, but much later? #
The tradition of Christ concerning the celebration of the Divine Liturgy and the giving of the Body of Christ into the hands of the communicants, as well as prayer to God and His saints, has not been abolished in the Holy Church, but rather it has been perfected. The bread and wine, which Christ offered as a sacrifice and transformed into the mystery of His Body and Blood, are still offered by us today. Moreover, it is necessary to perform prayers and be instructed in the Word of God during this great mystery, as Christ commanded us and as the holy apostles practiced.
In the time of the apostles, during the celebration of the Liturgy and other prayers, the reading of the Holy Gospel and apostolic epistles could not have been included because these were written after a period of oral gospel preaching. The apostles themselves, during the celebration of the Liturgy, would read the prophecies of the ancient prophets for the edification of the people. But when the teaching of the Gospel was sanctified in writing by the four evangelists and the apostolic epistles began to be esteemed higher than the teachings of the prophets, it became necessary for the instruction of God’s Word to take the teachings of the apostles and evangelists as the foundation. In arranging this teaching for the Holy Church of Christ, the great hierarchs Basil the Great and John Chrysostom were more instrumental than others. They included the teaching of God’s Word from the New Testament in the Liturgy and decided to align the mystical prayers accordingly. Therefore, the apostolic tradition of the Divine Liturgy was only perfected by them, not abolished. Could those who so strongly commanded the unalterable observance of even unwritten traditions have abolished any traditions? Basil the Great explains this extensively in the 91st rule, part of which we have cited above. Equally convincing is John Chrysostom, who, commenting on the apostle’s words: “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust” (1 Tim. 6:20), says: “Do not diminish it (that is, the tradition): it is not yours; it has been entrusted to you; do not reduce it” (Homily on the aforementioned words of the apostle). Furthermore, on the apostle’s words: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15), he clarifies, saying: “The apostles did not transmit everything to the believers through epistles, but communicated much without writing; both are equally trustworthy. Therefore, we must regard both the written and unwritten traditions of the Church as trustworthy.” (Homily on the aforementioned words of the apostle).
Thus, it is clear that in the composition of the liturgies of Basil the Great and John Chrysostom, according to their understanding and the common understanding of the Holy Church on this matter, there was no abolition or alteration of apostolic tradition, but only the necessary improvement, for which the Holy Church calls one of them “the thirteenth apostle” (Nikon of the Black Mountain, Taktikon, word 3, leaf 29 verso), and the other “the mouth of the Apostle Paul and of Christ Himself” (in the title of Chrysostom’s homily on Holy Pascha in the Triodion). Therefore, to cite their liturgies as examples of changes or abolitions of any church traditions, as some do, is an unforgivable presumption and injustice.
As for the giving of the Holy Gifts not into the hands, but directly into the mouths with a spoon, one cannot even suggest that there was no such tradition from the holy apostles. All who believe in Christ have, since the beginning of the Divine Liturgy, regarded it as their inviolable duty to partake of the most pure Mysteries, but among them, there always had to be infants and the very sick who, though desiring to receive the Holy Gift, could no longer use their hands effectively. And if the holy apostles never said that such people should be deprived of holy communion, it is clear that they, too, had to use a spoon to administer communion to such persons, and they could not have considered such communion to be different from the one in which Christ’s Body was given into the hands of the faithful. If there were a difference, the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which forbade priests from giving Christ’s Body to communicants in specially prepared vessels instead of in their hands, would certainly have mentioned that it was also unacceptable to administer the Holy Gifts from a spoon to those capable of receiving them in their hands. But since the Council remained silent on this matter, this silence confirms the non-difference in administering the Holy Gifts, whether into the hands or into the mouths of communicants.
If anyone dares to say that the Sixth Ecumenical Council remained silent because the sacred spoon did not yet exist, this cannot be accepted, not only because without this sacred spoon it would have been impossible to administer communion to infants and the very sick, but also because the sacred spoon is explicitly mentioned by St.@ Ephraim the Syrian, a contemporary of Basil the Great, who lived before not only the Sixth but also the Second Ecumenical Council. This holy man, explaining the most pure Mysteries, says: “The bodiless Seraphim sanctified Isaiah with a burning coal. Fire, however, does not have a single nature in itself, but two: it is both wood and fire. Similarly, this holy bread does not have a single nature, but both a human and a divine nature. The flesh is united with the divine nature, having two natures. Therefore, let those who love Christ approach, not as if receiving that terrible communion from a man or a priest, but as if from that same Seraphim, from that fiery spoon, which Isaiah saw” (Homily 107, leaf 317). But Isaiah saw the Seraphim not with a spoon, but with tongs. If St.@ Ephraim replaced them with a spoon, it is evident that in the Church, it was customary to receive communion not only from the hands but also from a spoon. Theodore Valsamon, commenting on the 101st rule of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, says: “Do not be surprised or inquire about the reason why in some churches the Holy Body of Christ is given to the laity in this manner and not handed over to them, as this rule suggests: for it is not due to the laity’s unworthiness, but to true faith and fear of God, and undoubted reverence, that this practice has been passed down” (The Rules of the Ecumenical Councils with Commentaries).
Yet it is also impossible to deny that the tradition of Christ Himself to give the most pure Body of Christ directly into the hands of communicants still exists in the Holy Church. Even now, the clergy receive the Body of Christ in their hands, not only directly from the diskos but even from the hands of the senior priest when there are several serving at the Liturgy, and sometimes, upon request, the reserved Holy Gifts are given into the hands of ordinary laity so that they may partake of them at certain times.
Thus, with the widespread practice of lay Christians communing from a spoon, no abolition or alteration of apostolic tradition has been made, but only a further refinement to ensure that some, out of extreme ignorance, might not lose even the smallest particles of that Holy Gift.
The same must be said of the creators of our later liturgical books: they made no abolition or alteration of the apostolic tradition regarding church prayer but only perfected it. Just as the great multitude of respected patristic writings in the Church does not abolish or alter the gospel preaching but rather clarifies it more fully from various perspectives.
On this subject, the venerable Vincent of Lerins, explaining the words of the apostle: “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust” (1 Tim. 6:20), says: “Keep the treasure of the catholic faith intact and uncorrupted. What has been entrusted to you, let it remain with you, and pass it on as you received it… O Timothy! O priest, interpreter, and teacher! If the gift of God has made you worthy by your mind, education, and learning, be Bezalel of the spiritual tabernacle: carve the precious stones of divine teaching, fit them faithfully, distribute them wisely, adorn them with splendor and charm. Strive so that, through your clearer exposition, what was once believed with less clarity is now more clearly understood. Achieve that the next generation may consciously glorify what the past venerated without full awareness. However, teach what you have been taught, so that when you speak in a new way, you do not introduce something new… In the Church of Christ, there should be progress… and significant progress at that. Who is so envious of humanity and so hateful of God that they would refuse this? However, this progress must indeed be progress, not a change of faith. Progress consists in the subject itself being perfected, whereas change occurs when something ceases to be what it is. Thus, let understanding, knowledge, and wisdom increase greatly over the years and centuries for everyone, both individually and collectively, but only within the same teaching, in the same sense, and in the same understanding… For if we allow impious lies to alter, distort, and disfigure them, I shudder to say what a great danger of destruction and annihilation will follow for religion. Then, having rejected one part of the catholic teaching as if by custom and with permission, they will gradually begin to reject one part after another. And after rejecting the parts one by one, what else will eventually follow but the rejection of the whole? On the other hand, if they start to mix the ancient with the new, the domestic with the foreign, and the sacred with the profane, this practice will necessarily spread throughout, so that eventually, nothing will remain in the Church—neither whole, nor unblemished, nor uncorrupted, nor undefiled. Where once there was a sanctuary of pure and undefiled truth, there will finally be a house of impious and vile errors. May God’s goodness keep this impiety away from our minds! Let it remain the madness of the impious!… And let the Catholics, on the contrary, truly strive to preserve the traditions and teachings of the holy fathers, to condemn the profane innovations, and, in accordance with the apostle’s word, pronounced twice, let them anathematize anyone who preaches something other than what has been received” (Memorable Notes of Vincent of Lerins, chapters 22, 23, 24).
Similarly, the Council of Union decrees: “All that has been newly created or done by the church’s traditions and teachings and the imaginations of the holy and ever-memorable fathers, or that may be done henceforth, let it be anathema.” And again, it says: “To those who disregard the sacred and divine rules of our divine fathers, which uphold the Church and adorn all Christian life and lead to divine fear, let them be anathema.” This holy council, in these two curses, completely rejects any vain opinions and opposition: “Whoever follows the holy councils that came before it, that council is holy; whoever does not follow the holy councils that came before it is not holy, but defiled and rejected” (Kormchaia, chapter 71, leaf 641; and Nikon of the Black Mountain, Taktikon, leaf 2).
The Seventh Ecumenical Council also establishes this, proclaiming: “We follow the ancient law of the catholic Church. We preserve the decrees of the fathers. We anathematize those who add anything to the teachings of the catholic Church or take anything away from it. We anathematize the innovations made by the accusers of Christians… Whoever diminishes any church tradition, whether written or unwritten, let them be anathema… And again: Whoever rejects any written and unwritten church tradition, let them be anathema” (Conciliar Acts, vol. 7, Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, pp. 610, 612, and 628).
Therefore, it is clear that the refinements of church traditions made over time cannot in any way be cited as examples for the abolition or any nonsensical alteration of them. Consequently, we must pray to the Lord God that He may grant us true wisdom to discern the right from the evil and the good from the bad, and that He may deem us worthy to serve Him in fear and trembling all the days of our lives and to offer Him glory forever and ever, amen.