I thought it might be useful to post some notes on the meaning of 'Tradition' as understood within the Catholic and (I believe) Orthodox Churches. It might serve as a useful discussion point between denominations, and no doubt will be somewhat outrageous to those of a more speculative nature, and such discussions should probably take place elsewhere, if at all.
A point to realise is that Christianity was first and foremost an oral tradition, it was taught before the Canon of the New Testament was codified, and this teaching was from Christ to his apostles, and from his apostles to their successors, and so on, until today.
To assume then that orthodoxy has somehow got it wrong is to assume that Christ was unable to transmit what He meant to those whom He called, and that Christ was unable to fulfill the promises He made to his followers and the church that He founded.
To assume, for example, that right from the very outset the apostles decided to alter his teaching to suit themselves, as evidenced by the contrary accounts contained in the apocryphal gospels of Judas or Mary, one is obliged to accept that the same accusation can be laid at the door of the apocryphal texts. Therefore one is obliged to look outside the texts for their authenticity of validity - one is obliged to listen to the voice of tradition.
Any argument one presents to discredit the orthodox Canon (date, authorship, etc.,) applies to the apocrypha equally.
A notable example is that the earliest the Gospel of Judas can be dated is 180Ad, when it was mentioned by Irenaeus. The surviving manuscript is more recent. The question then depends on whether the GoJ that Irenaeus mentions is the one which exists. Either way, the GoJ was repudiated by Irenaeus.
+++
The Canon of the New Testament, the written texts of Christianity, were determined in the light of the Church's teaching Tradition - so Scripture was determined in the light of Tradition. (This rather throws a spanner in the works of the Reformation and the Sola Scriptura brigade.)
Whilst Scripture is then the Word of God, inspired and irrefutable, Tradition is the means of its transmission from generation to generation, and with it the manner of right interpretation.
What marks the exegete, the apologist and the scholastic is a philosophical rigour that is second to none. This cannot be argued, as it is evident in itself, and the fact that no author claiming a Christian heritage outside of the orthodox transmission can withstand their interrogation. The simple point being that were their arguments true, they would be orthodox.
Note: St Paul, the Fathers and their successors made use of the methodology of the Greek philosophical tradition, and acknowledged the wisdom and insight of its practitioners - Aquinas in his works refers to Aristotle as The Master - Plotinus is another that had a profound influence on the Christian Platonism - but these men made no claim to orthodoxy - and this is what sets them apart from the gnostics - their philosophy stands on its own two feet, as it were, whilst the gnostics borrow their authority from everywhere - and display a great lack of philosophical rigour.
+++
We can trace in the writings of Clement of Rome (Rome), Irenaeus (Gaul) Tertullian (N Africa) - that everywhere the same message was being taught, there are references directly and indirectly to a Creed, a profession of faith, held in common by all three authors, as it is in others, and it is which gives us the measure of authenticity of transmission.
If you refute the Orthodox Tradition you cannot but undermine any argument you pose against it for an alternative. You are free to accept it or deny it, but you cannot argue for the inclusion of, or even the orthodoxy of, any document or interpretation which does not accord with the Fides Qua, the Deposit of Faith that comprises the content of tradition itself.
The primary argument over orthodoxy on this board, as is prevalent in the world today, has little to do with the actual content of scripture, and everything to do with the authority of the Church with regard to the interpretation of texts - what bridles the ego is the Church's right to refuse all and sundry the free rein of their own fantasy and speculation - the self-determined assumption that because this is how I choose to interpret it, my interpretation is right and inarguable - whilst the true fruit of a genuine mystical speculation is evident and unsurpassed in the works of her saints and sages - and if they clash with her authority, this is only a sign of her first mission to hold to the truth without distraction ... Origen and Eckhart, two of the most famous cases, are both held in esteem within the Church today and it is her scholars who seek to demonstrate that they never strayed from the Path.
+++
One cannot separate faith in a Christian God from a faith in his Church, and his Church is the visible (and invisible) presence of his Word 'in Spirit and in Truth' and its transmission to the world.
Anyone can teach and claim anything they like, but they cannot claim it as tradition, they cannot claim it as orthodox, and they cannot claim it as Christian.
+++
In closing I might add that the notion that a group of conspirators sat down with the intention to subvert the message of Christ flies in the face of reason and the facts (especially when almost to a man these 'conspirators' suffered martyrdom - only a fool would die for what he does not believe in), the emergence of 'conspiracy theory' is a twentieth-century phenomena and a signifier of the loss of the sense of the sacred, as much as anything else.
Thomas
A point to realise is that Christianity was first and foremost an oral tradition, it was taught before the Canon of the New Testament was codified, and this teaching was from Christ to his apostles, and from his apostles to their successors, and so on, until today.
To assume then that orthodoxy has somehow got it wrong is to assume that Christ was unable to transmit what He meant to those whom He called, and that Christ was unable to fulfill the promises He made to his followers and the church that He founded.
To assume, for example, that right from the very outset the apostles decided to alter his teaching to suit themselves, as evidenced by the contrary accounts contained in the apocryphal gospels of Judas or Mary, one is obliged to accept that the same accusation can be laid at the door of the apocryphal texts. Therefore one is obliged to look outside the texts for their authenticity of validity - one is obliged to listen to the voice of tradition.
Any argument one presents to discredit the orthodox Canon (date, authorship, etc.,) applies to the apocrypha equally.
A notable example is that the earliest the Gospel of Judas can be dated is 180Ad, when it was mentioned by Irenaeus. The surviving manuscript is more recent. The question then depends on whether the GoJ that Irenaeus mentions is the one which exists. Either way, the GoJ was repudiated by Irenaeus.
+++
The Canon of the New Testament, the written texts of Christianity, were determined in the light of the Church's teaching Tradition - so Scripture was determined in the light of Tradition. (This rather throws a spanner in the works of the Reformation and the Sola Scriptura brigade.)
Whilst Scripture is then the Word of God, inspired and irrefutable, Tradition is the means of its transmission from generation to generation, and with it the manner of right interpretation.
What marks the exegete, the apologist and the scholastic is a philosophical rigour that is second to none. This cannot be argued, as it is evident in itself, and the fact that no author claiming a Christian heritage outside of the orthodox transmission can withstand their interrogation. The simple point being that were their arguments true, they would be orthodox.
Note: St Paul, the Fathers and their successors made use of the methodology of the Greek philosophical tradition, and acknowledged the wisdom and insight of its practitioners - Aquinas in his works refers to Aristotle as The Master - Plotinus is another that had a profound influence on the Christian Platonism - but these men made no claim to orthodoxy - and this is what sets them apart from the gnostics - their philosophy stands on its own two feet, as it were, whilst the gnostics borrow their authority from everywhere - and display a great lack of philosophical rigour.
+++
We can trace in the writings of Clement of Rome (Rome), Irenaeus (Gaul) Tertullian (N Africa) - that everywhere the same message was being taught, there are references directly and indirectly to a Creed, a profession of faith, held in common by all three authors, as it is in others, and it is which gives us the measure of authenticity of transmission.
If you refute the Orthodox Tradition you cannot but undermine any argument you pose against it for an alternative. You are free to accept it or deny it, but you cannot argue for the inclusion of, or even the orthodoxy of, any document or interpretation which does not accord with the Fides Qua, the Deposit of Faith that comprises the content of tradition itself.
The primary argument over orthodoxy on this board, as is prevalent in the world today, has little to do with the actual content of scripture, and everything to do with the authority of the Church with regard to the interpretation of texts - what bridles the ego is the Church's right to refuse all and sundry the free rein of their own fantasy and speculation - the self-determined assumption that because this is how I choose to interpret it, my interpretation is right and inarguable - whilst the true fruit of a genuine mystical speculation is evident and unsurpassed in the works of her saints and sages - and if they clash with her authority, this is only a sign of her first mission to hold to the truth without distraction ... Origen and Eckhart, two of the most famous cases, are both held in esteem within the Church today and it is her scholars who seek to demonstrate that they never strayed from the Path.
+++
One cannot separate faith in a Christian God from a faith in his Church, and his Church is the visible (and invisible) presence of his Word 'in Spirit and in Truth' and its transmission to the world.
Anyone can teach and claim anything they like, but they cannot claim it as tradition, they cannot claim it as orthodox, and they cannot claim it as Christian.
+++
In closing I might add that the notion that a group of conspirators sat down with the intention to subvert the message of Christ flies in the face of reason and the facts (especially when almost to a man these 'conspirators' suffered martyrdom - only a fool would die for what he does not believe in), the emergence of 'conspiracy theory' is a twentieth-century phenomena and a signifier of the loss of the sense of the sacred, as much as anything else.
Thomas
