The
South’s concern for a proper interpretation of the [u]nited States Constitution
has shown forth in the many books and essays written and speeches given by
Southern statesmen and men of letters on this subject over the years, from
Thomas Jefferson to M. E. Bradford.
Implicit in their argument is that in order to understand the meaning of
the instrument of Union rightly, one must know
and accept the proper history and tradition that gave rise to it.
Because
of the Great Schism of 1054 and the Protestant Reformation, the South has had
more difficulty in approaching the Bible with the same spirit of unity as they
have the [u.] S. Constitution. Who holds
to the correct Tradition by which the meaning of the Scriptures may be rightly
divided? Methodists, Catholics,
Episcopalians, Baptists, Pentecostals?
Because
of the South’s ignorance of the Orthodox Church, she could never have settled
this question in such a way as to bring the sought-for peace and harmony among
Souðern Christians. Southern Catholics
and Protestants alike stood (and remain) outside the pure waters of the stream
of Holy Tradition that is found only in the Orthodox Church. So long as they do so, so long will there be
division and discord, misunderstanding and soul-sickness among Southern
Christians.
For
the written word of the Bible is subject to as many different interpretations
as there are readers of it (whether these be right or wrong). St Ephraim the Syrian said it this way:
And a letter cannot speak. A letter, therefore,
cannot demonstrate every matter about which a man is seeking to ask questions,
because the tongue of the letter is far away from it—its tongue is the pen of
the writer of it. Moreover, when the letter speaks anything written in it, it
takes to itself another tongue that the letter may speak with it, (the letter)
which silently speaks with two mute tongues, one being the ink-pen, the other,
the sight of the (reader’s) eye.
Source: Gabe
Martini, ‘The Limits of the Written Word’, On
Behalf of All, http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/onbehalfofall/the-limits-of-the-written-word/, posted 13 Aug. 2013, accessed 21 Dec. 2014
Southerners
must be humble enough to admit that they need help in understanding the Holy
Scriptures, following the good ensample of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30,
31). Who should be their teachers? The Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, men
full of the Holy Spirit who have held unwaveringly to the Holy Tradition of the
Church. One such is the Elder Cleope
Ilie of Romania. May his words about Holy Tradition and Holy
Scripture sink deeply into the Southern soul and bear fruit an
hundredfold.
. . .
Inq.: Why isn't Holy Scripture sufficient for faith and
salvation, with no need whatsoever of Tradition? This is apparent from the
words of the Apostle Paul to Timothy: And that from a child thou hast known
the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through
faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness (2 Tim. 3:15-16). These words are clear. It is unnecessary to
add anything to Holy Scripture.
EC: Here he is speaking only of Old Testament
Scripture, for the New Testament had not yet been written. Paul wrote to
Timothy that a good teacher could use the Old Testament to support his faith in
Christ and his instruction in Christianity. According to the notion that you
mistakenly assert, it would follow that not one book of the New Testament—those
written after the epistles of the Apostle Paul to Timothy—should be accepted.
It is enough instead for us to recognize the Old Testament books mentioned in
the passage to which you refer.
Inq.: Some people don't acknowledge Tradition because
they say that with the passing of time it yielded to many illegitimate
elements; so that, especially today, we are no longer able to discern the true
Apostolic Tradition from the false.
EC: The Church of Christ determined the truths of the
Faith, according to the long course of Tradition, through the teachings and
canons of the holy Ecumenical Councils, decrees and the Symbol of Faith [The
Creed], and by confessions [of Faith] made by holy and wonderworking hierarchs
at the many local synods which have been held continuously since days of old.
At these synods, the authenticity and genuineness of the holy Orthodox Faith
was firmly established, primarily in those areas where it was attacked by the
existing heresies of the time. The irrevocable and inalterable content of Holy
Tradition emerges from the totality of those synods. This can be understood by
closely examining the essence of the following precepts:
-
Do not sanction concepts that contain inconsistencies or contradictions with
Apostolic Tradition and Holy Scripture. (A teaching is to be considered worthy
of the name ”Tradition” when it stems from the Saviour or the Holy Apostles,
and is directly influenced by the Holy Spirit.)
-
Tradition is that which has been protected by the Apostolic Church,
and has an uninterrupted continuity up to today.
-
Tradition is that which is confessed and practiced by the entire universal
Orthodox Church.
-
Tradition is that which is in harmony with the greater part of the [Church] fathers
and ecclesiastical writers.
When
a tradition does not fulfill these stipulations, it cannot be considered true
and holy, and consequently cannot be considered admissible or fit to be
observed.
Inq.: Notwithstanding all the efforts which you say the
Orthodox Church has made and continues to make relative to the truth of
Tradition, some believe only the teachings which are contained in Holy
Scripture. For the first Christians—they say—accepted only such writings as
were contained in Holy Scripture, as it is written: These were more noble
than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness
of mind and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so
(Acts 17:11). From this it follows that we should observe the teachings we find
in Holy Scripture.
EC: The great Apostle Paul, however, commends the
Christians of Corinth not because they kept the written teachings, but because
they obeyed him and diligently observed the oral teachings that they had
received from him. Listen to what he writes; Now I praise you, brethren,
that ye remember me in all things, and even as I delivered to you, ye are
holding fast the traditions (1 Cor. 11:2). I wonder which is better for us
to do: to observe only the written teachings, or to follow the great Apostle
Paul who extols those who keep the unwritten tradition as well? Furthermore, we
have established that the Holy Apostles and Evangelists believed and preached
abundantly from Holy Tradition, which they inherited from of old, and which is
not written anywhere in Holy Scripture.
Inq.: Where specifically does it appear that the Holy
Apostles taught anything other than what was written in Holy Scripture?
EC: Here are two testimonies: The Holy Apostle Jude
says in his catholic epistle, including in verse nine: But when the
archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses,
he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, The
Lord rebuke thee (Jude 9). Dearest to Christ, search all of Holy Scripture
and see if you will find this citation. Still further down in the same epistle
the Apostle refers to the prophecy of Enoch, saying: And Enoch also, the
seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with
ten thousand of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all
that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly
committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken
against him (Jude 14-20). However, the Apostle Jude is not the only one to
speak from Tradition. Listen to what the illustrious Paul says in his second
epistle to Timothy: Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these
also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith
(2 Tim. 3:8). And again the renowned Apostle Paul, guiding the priests of Ephesus, says: Remember
the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, it is more blessed to give than to
receive (Acts 20:35). Now I ask you who insist on only putting faith in the
written word: From where did the two Apostles—Jude and Paul—take these words?
For you will not find them anywhere in Holy Scripture.
. . .
Inq.: How was this Canon of Holy Tradition in the Church
preserved over the span of thousands of years? In our age, some allege that the
clergy and ecclesiastical writers alter from day to day the truth of Holy
Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition, which in the beginning was authentic and
genuine? They say that if you have in your hand a book that was published 50
years ago and you put it next to one published recently, they would have
nothing in common. It therefore follows that if the hierarchs and priests have
done this with the sacred books, they would do the same with the Holy Tradition
which the Orthodox boast they have preserved unscathed from [the time of] the
Holy Apostles.
EC: What your companions have accepted is not at all
correct. The teachings of the Church
of Christ are guarded by
the Holy Spirit and cannot err (Mat. 10:17-20, John 4: 16-26, 1 Tim. 3:15). The
very founder of the Church, Jesus Christ, governs it in an unseen way, until
the end of the ages (Mat. 28:20). If some ecclesiastical writers, hierarchs,
priests or laity translated the Bible from another language, or amended some
passage containing an expression which does not correspond to our present-day
speech, this would only be an adjustment and modification of the expression,
and not a serious alteration of the substance of the Biblical text. If a
Romanian from the time of the Elder Mirtsea or Stephan the Great (1504) were
resurrected today and you wanted to speak with him, you would only with
difficulty understand him, because the language has developed into something
that is not exactly what was spoken then. This is precisely what has happened
with respect to the books. With the passage of time, the writers' words or
expressions were amended with appropriate present-day language—without however,
changing the meaning of the profound and sacred writings. I previously referred
you to the foundation upon which Holy Tradition rests, and the means by which
its authentic, original image is reliably preserved and conveyed throughout the
ages. I am referring to the ancient Symbol of Faith (The Creed), the Apostolic
Canons, and the dogmatic decisions of the Seven[2] Ecumenical Councils. To these can also be
added the following monumental and meaningful testaments—assurances of the
unimpaired preservation of Holy Tradition:
. . .
Source: ‘On
Holy Tradition’, http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/38631.htm,
posted 10 Aug. 2010, accessed 25 Dec. 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment