|
St. Vincent
of Lerins and tradition
The famous dictum of St. Vincent of Lerins was
characteristic of the attitude of the Ancient Church in the
matters of faith: “We must hold what has been believed
everywhere, always, and by all” [Commonitorium, 2].
This was at once the criterion and the norm. The crucial
emphasis was here on the permanence of Christian teaching.
St. Vincent was actually appealing to the double
“ecumenicity” of Christian faith — in space and in time. In
fact, it was the same great vision which had inspired St.
Irenaeus in his own time: the One Church, expanded and
scattered in the whole world, and yet speaking with one
voice, holding the same faith everywhere, as it had been
handed down by the blessed Apostles and preserved by the
succession of witnesses: quae est ab apostolis, quae per
successionem presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur.
[“Which is being preserved in the Church from the Apostles
through the succession of the presbyters.”] These two
aspects of faith, or rather — the two dimensions, could
never be separated from each other. Universitas and
antiquitas, as well as consensio, belonged
together.
Neither was an adequate criterion by itself.
“Antiquity” as such was not yet a sufficient warrant of
truth, unless a comprehensive consensus of the “ancients”
could be satisfactorily demonstrated. And consensio
as such was not conclusive, unless it could be traced back
continuously to Apostolic origins. Now, suggested St.
Vincent, the true faith could be recognized by a double
recourse — to Scripture and Tradition: duplici modo …
primum scilicet divinae legis auctoritate, tum deinde
ecclesiae catholicae traditione. [“In two ways … first
clearly by the authority of the Holy Scriptures, then by the
tradition of the Catholic Church.”] This did not imply,
however, that there were two sources of Christian doctrine.
Indeed, the rule, or canon, of Scripture was “perfect” and
“self‑sufficient” — ad omnia satis superque sufficiat.
[“For all things complete and more than sufficient.”]
Why then should it be supplemented by any other “authority”?
Why was it imperative to invoke also the authority of
“ecclesiastical understanding” — ecclesiasticae
intelligentiae auctoritas?
The reason was obvious:
Scriptures were differently interpreted by individuals:
ut paene quot hominess tot illinc sententiae erui posse
videantur. [“So that one might almost gain the
impression that it can yield as many different meanings, as
there are men.”] To this variety of “private” opinions St.
Vincent opposes the “common” mind of the Church, the mind of
the Church Catholic: ut propheticae et apostolicae
interpretationis linea secundum ecclesiastici et catholici
sensus normam dirigatur. [“That the trend of the
interpretation of the prophets and the apostolic writings be
directed in accordance with the rule of the ecclesiastical
and Catholic meaning.”] Tradition was not, according to St.
Vincent, an independent instance, nor was it a complementary
source of faith. “Ecclesiastical understanding” could not
add anything to the Scripture. But it was the only means to
ascertain and to disclose the true meaning of Scripture.
Tradition was, in fact, the authentic interpretation of
Scripture. And in this sense it was co‑extensive with
Scripture. Tradition was actually “Scripture rightly
understood.” And Scripture was for St. Vincent the only,
primary and ultimate, canon of Christian truth (Commonitorium,
cap. II, cf. cap. 28).
The
hermeneutical question in the Ancient Church
At this point St. Vincent was in full agreement with
the established tradition. In the admirable phrase of St.
Hilary of Poitiers, scripturae enim non in legendo sunt,
sed in intelligendo. [“For Scripture is not in the
reading, but in the understanding;” ad Constantium Aug.,
lib. II, cap. 9, ML X, 570; the phrase is repeated also by
St. Jerome, Dial. c. Lucifer., cap. 28, ML XXIII,
190‑191]. The problem of right exegesis was still a burning
issue in the Fourth century, in the contest of the Church
with the Arians, no less than it has been in the Second
century, in the struggle against Gnostics, Sabellians, and
Montanists. All parties in the dispute used to appeal to
Scripture. Heretics, even Gnostics and Manichees, used to
quote Scriptural texts and passages and to invoke the
authority of the Holy Writ. Moreover, exegesis was at that
time the main, and probably the only, theological method,
and the authority of the Scripture was sovereign and
supreme.
The Orthodox were bound to raise the crucial
hermeneutical question: What was the principle of
interpretation? Now, in the Second century the term
“Scriptures” denoted primarily the Old Testament and, on the
other hand, the authority of these “Scriptures” was sharply
challenged, and actually repudiated, by the teaching of Marcion. The Unity of the Bible had to be proved and
vindicated. What was the basis, and the warrant, of
Christian, and Christological, understanding of “Prophecy,”
that is — of the Old Testament? It was in this historical
situation that the authority of Tradition was first invoked.
Scripture belonged to the Church, and it was only in the
Church, within the community of right faith, that Scripture
could be adequately understood and correctly interpreted.
Heretics, that is — those outside of the Church, had no key
to the mind of the Scripture. It was not enough just to read
and to quote Scriptural words — the true meaning, or intent,
of Scripture, taken as an integrated whole, had to be
elicited.
One had to grasp, as it were in advance, the true
pattern of Biblical revelation, the great design of God’s
redemptive Providence, and this could be done only by an
insight of faith. It was by faith that Christuszeugniss
could be discerned in the Old Testament. It was by faith
that the unity of the tetramorph Gospel could be properly
ascertained. But this faith was not an arbitrary and
subjective insight of individuals — it was the faith of the
Church, rooted in the Apostolic message, or kerygma,
and authenticated by it. Those outside of the Church were
missing precisely this basic and overarching message, the
very heart of the Gospel. With them Scripture was just a
dead letter, or an array of disconnected passages and
stories, which they endeavored to arrange or re‑arrange on
their own pattern, derived from alien sources. They had
another faith. This was the main argument of Tertullian in
his passionate treatise De praescriptione. He would
not discuss Scriptures with heretics — they had no right to
use Scriptures, as they did not belong to them.
Scriptures
were the Church’s possession. Emphatically did Tertullian
insist on the priority of the “rule of faith,” regula
fidei. It was the only key to the meaning of the
Scripture. And this “rule” was Apostolic, was rooted in,
and derived from, the Apostolic preaching. C. H. Turner has
rightly described the meaning and the intention of this
appeal or reference to the “rule of faith” in the Early
Church. “When Christians spoke of the ‘Rule of Faith’ as
‘Apostolic,’ they did not mean that the Apostles had met and
formulated it … What they meant was that the profession of
belief which every catechumen recited before his baptism did
embody in summary form the faith which the Apostles had
taught and had committed to their disciples to teach after
them.” This profession was the same everywhere, although the
actual phrasing could vary from place to place.
It was
always intimately related to the baptismal formula [C. H. Turner, Apostolic
Succession, in “Essays on the Early History of the
Church and the Ministry,” edited by H. B. Swete (London,
1918), pp. 101‑102. See also Yves M. J. Cougar, O.P., La
Tradition et les traditions, 11. Essai Théologique
(Paris, 1963), pp. 21 ss]. Apart from this “rule”
Scripture could be but misinterpreted. Scripture and
Tradition were indivisibly interwined for Tertullian. Ubi
enim apparuerit esse veritatem disciplinae et fidei
christianae, illic erit veritas scripturarum et expositionum
et omnium traditionum christianarum. [“For only where
the true Christian teaching and faith are evident will the
true Scriptures, the true interpretations, and all the true
Christian traditions be found;” XIX. 3]. The Apostolic
Tradition of faith was the indispensable guide in the
understanding of Scripture and the ultimate warrant of right
interpretation.
The Church was not an external authority,
which had to judge over the Scripture, but rather the keeper
and guardian of that Divine truth which was stored and
deposited in the Holy Writ
[Cf. E. Flesseman‑van‑Leer, Tradition and Scripture in
the Early Church (Assen, 1954), pp. 145‑185; Damien van
den Eynde, Les Normes de l’Enseignment Chrétien dans la
litterature patristique des trois premiers siècles
(Gembloux‑Paris, 1933), pp. 197‑212; J. K. Stirniman, Die
Praescriptio Tertullians im Lichte des römischen Rechts und
der Théologie (Freiburg, 1949); and also the
introduction and notes of R. F. Refoulé, O.P., in the
edition of De praescriptione, in the “Sources
Chrétiennes,” 46 (Paris, 1957)].
St. Irenaeus and
the “Canon of Truth”
Denouncing the Gnostic mishandling of Scriptures,
St. Irenaeus introduced a picturesque simile. A skillful
artist has made a beautiful image of a king, composed of
many precious jewels. Now, another man takes this mosaic
image apart, re‑arranges the stones in another pattern so as
to produce the image of a dog or of a fox. Then he starts
claiming that this was the original picture, by the first
master, under the pretext that the gems (the
ψηφιδες) were authentic. In fact, however, the
original design had been destroyed — λυσας
την υποκειμενην του ανθρωπου ιδεαν. This is precisely
what the heretics do with the Scripture. They disregard and
disrupt “the order and connection” of the Holy Writ and
“dismember the truth” — λυοντες τα μελη της
αληθειας. Words, expressions, and images —ρηματα,
λεξεις παραβολαι —are genuine,
indeed, but the design, the υποθεσις
(ipothesis), is arbitrary and false (adv.
haeres., 1. 8. 1).
St. Irenaeus suggested as well
another analogy. There were in circulation at that time
certain Homerocentones, composed of genuine verses of
Homer, but taken at random and out of context, and
re‑arranged in arbitrary manner. All particular verses were
truly Homeric, but the new story, fabricated by the means of
re‑arrangement, was not Homeric at all. Yet, one could be
easily deceived by the familiar sound of the Homeric idiom
(1.9.4). It is worth noticing that Tertullian also refers to
these curious centones, made of Homeric or Virgilian
verses (de praescr., XXXIX). Apparently, it was a
common device in the polemical literature of that time. Now,
the point which St. Irenaeus endeavored to make is obvious.
Scripture had its own pattern or design, its internal
structure and harmony. The heretics ignore this pattern, or
rather substitute their own instead. In other words, they
re‑arrange the Scriptural evidence on a pattern which is
quite alien to the Scripture itself. Now, contended St.
Irenaeus, those who had kept unbending that “canon of truth”
which they had received at baptism, will have no difficulty
in “restoring each expression to its appropriate place.”
Then they are able to behold the true image. The actual
phrase used by St. Irenaeus is peculiar:
προσαρμοσας τω της αληθειας σωματιω (prosarmosas
to tis alithias somatio; which is clumsily
rendered in the old Latin translation as corpusculum
veritatis). But the meaning of the phrase is quite
clear. The somatio is not necessarily a
diminutive. It simply denotes a “corporate body.” In the
phrase of St. Irenaeus it denotes the corpus of
truth, the right context, the original design, the “true
image,” the original disposition of gems and verses
[Cf. F. Kattenbusch, Das
Apostolische Symbol, Bd. II (Leipzig, 1900), ss. 30 ff.,
and also his note in the “Zeitschrift f. neutest.
Theologie,” x (1909), ss. 331‑332]. Thus, for St.
Irenaeus, the reading of Scripture must be guided by the
“rule” of faith — to which believers are committed (and into
which they are initiated) by their baptismal profession, and
by which only the basic message, or “the truth,” of the
Scripture can be adequately assessed and identified.
The
favorite phrase of St. Irenaeus was “the rule of truth,”
κανων της αλιθειας (kanon
tis alithias), regula veritatis. Now, this
“rule” was, in fact, nothing else than the witness and
preaching of the Apostles, their κηρυγμα
(kirigma) and praedicatio (or
praeconium), which was “deposited” in the Church and
entrusted to her by the Apostles, and then was faithfully
kept and handed down, with complete unanimity in all places,
by the succession of accredited pastors: Those who, together
with the succession of the episcopacy, have received the
firm charisma of truth [IV. 26. 2].
Whatever the direct and
exact connotation of this pregnant phrase may be [It has been contended that
charisma veritatis was actually simply the Apostolic
doctrine and the truth (of the Divine Revelation), so that
St. Irenaeus did not imply any special ministerial endowment
of the bishops. See Karl Müller, Kleine Beiträge zur
alten Kirchengeschichte, 3. Das Charisma
veritatis und der Episcopat bei Irenaeus, in
“Zeitschrift f. neut. Wissenschaft,” Bd. xxiii (1924), ss.
216‑222; cf. van den Eynde, pp. 183‑187; Y. M. J. Congar,
O.P., La Tradition et ler traditions, Êtude
historique (Paris, 1960), pp. 97‑98; Hans Freiherr von
Campenhausen, Kirchliches Amt und geistliche Vollmacht in
den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Tübingen, 1953),
ss. 185 ff.; and also‑with the special emphasis on the
character of “Succession” — Einar Molland, Irenaeus of
Lugdunum and the Apostolic Succession, in the “Journal
of Ecclesiastical History,” 1.1, 1950, pp. 12‑28, and Le
développement de 1’idée de succession apostolique, in
the “Revue d’historie et de philosophie réligieuses,”
xxxiv.i, 1954, pp. 1‑29. See, on the other hand, the
critical remarks of Arnold Ehrhardt, The Apostolic
Succession in the first two centuries of the Church
(London, 1953), pp. 207‑231, esp. 213‑214], there can
be no doubt that, in the mind of St. Irenaeus, this
continuous preservation and transmission of the deposited
faith was operated and guided by the abiding presence of the
Holy Spirit in the Church.
The whole conception of the
Church in St. Irenaeus was at once “charismatic” and
“institutional.” And “Tradition” was, in his understanding,
a depositum juvenescens, a living tradition,
entrusted to the Church as a new breath of life, just as
breath was bestowed upon the first man — (quemadmodum
aspiratio plasmationis III. 24. 1). Bishops or
“presbyters” were in the Church accredited guardians and
ministers of this once deposited truth. “Where, therefore,
the charismata of the Lord have been deposited (posita
sunt), there is it proper to learn the truth, namely
from those who have that succession of the Church which is
from the Apostles (apud quos est ea quae est ab apostolis
ecclesiae successio), and who display a sound and
blameless conduct and an unadulterated and incorrupt speech.
For these also preserve this faith of ours in one God who
created all things, and they increase that love for the Son
of God, who accomplished such marvellous dispensation for
our sake, and they expound the Scriptures to us without
danger, neither blaspheming God, nor dishonoring the
patriarchs, nor despising the prophets” (IV. 26. 5).
The regula fidei
Tradition was in the Early Church, first of all, an
hermeneutical principle and method. Scripture could be
rightly and fully assessed and understood only in the light
and in the context of the living Apostolic Tradition, which
was an integral factor of Christian existence. It was so, of
course, not because Tradition could add anything to what has
been manifested in the Scripture, but because it provided
that living context, the comprehensive perspective, in which
only the true “intention” and the total “design” of the Holy
Writ, itself of Divine Revelation, could be detected and
grasped. The truth was, according to St. Irenaeus, a
“well‑grounded system,” a corpus (adv. haeres.
II. 27. 1 — veritatis corpus), a “harmonious
melody” (II. 38. 3). But it was precisely this “harmony”
which could be grasped only by the insight of faith. Indeed,
Tradition was not just a transmission of inherited
doctrines, in a “Judaic manner,” but rather the continuous
life in the truth [Cf. Dom
Odo Casel O.S.B., Benedict von Nursia als Pneumatiker,
in “Heilige Überlieferung” (Münster, 1938), ss. 100‑101:
Die heilige Überlieferung ist daher in der Kirche von Anfang
an nicht bloss ein Weitergeben von Doktrinen nach
spätjudischen (nachchristlicher) Art gewesen, sondern ein
lebendiges Weiterblühen des göttlichen Lebens.
In a
footnote Dom Casel sends the reader back to John Adam
Möhler]. It was not a fixed core or complex of
binding propositions, but rather an insight into the
meaning and impact of the revelatory events, of the
revelation of the “God who acts.” And this was determinative
in the field of Biblical exegesis. G. L. Prestige has well
put it: “The voice of the Bible could be plainly heard only
if its text were interpreted broadly and rationally, in
accordance with the apostolic creed and the evidence of the
historical practice of Christendom. It was the heretics that
relied on isolated texts, and the Catholics who paid more
attention on the whole to scriptural principles”
[G. L. Prestige, Fathers
and Heretics (London, 1940), p. 43]. Summarizing
her careful analysis of the use of Tradition in the Early
Church, Dr. Ellen Flessemanvan‑Leer has written: “Scripture
without interpretation is not Scripture at all; the moment
it is used and becomes alive it is always interpreted
Scripture.”
Now, Scripture must be interpreted “according to
its own basic purpose,” which is disclosed in the regula
fidei. Thus, this regula becomes, as it were, the
controlling instance in the exegesis. “Real interpretation
of Scripture is Church preaching, is tradition”
[Flesseman, pp. 92‑96. On
St. Irenaeus see Flesseman, 100‑144; van den Eynde, 159‑187;
B. Reynders, Paradosis, Le progrès de l’idée tradition
jusqu’ à Saint Irénée, in the “Recherches de théologie
ancienne et mediévale,” v (1933), 155‑191; La polemique
de Saint Irenee, ibidem, vii (1935), 5‑27; Henri
Holstein, La Tradition des Apotres chez Saint Irénée,
in the “Recherches de Science réligieuse,” xxxvi (1949),
229‑270; La Tradition dans l’Eglise (Paris, 1960);
André Benoit, Ecriture et Tradition chez Saint Irénée,
in the “Révue d’histoire et de philosophie réligieuses,” xL
(1960), 32‑43; Saint Irénée, Introduction á l’etude de sa
théologie (Paris, 1960)].
St. Athanasius
and the “Scope of Faith”
The situation did not change in the Fourth century.
The dispute with the Arians was centered again in the
exegetical field — at least, in its early phase. The Arians
and their supporters have produced an impressive array of
Scriptural texts in the defense of their doctrinal position.
They wanted to restrict theological discussion to the
Biblical ground alone. Their claims had to be met precisely
on this ground, first of all. And their exegetical method,
the manner in which they handled the text, was much the same
as that of the earlier dissenters. They were operating with
selected proof‑texts, without much concern for the total
context of the Revelation. It was imperative for the
Orthodox to appeal to the mind of the Church, to that
“Faith” which had been once delivered and then faithfully
kept. This was the main concern, and the usual method, of
St. Athanasius.
The Arians quoted various passages from the
Scripture to substantiate their contention that the Saviour
was a creature. In reply St. Athanasius invoked the “rule
of faith.” This was his usual argument. “Let us, who possess
τον σκοπον της πιστεως [the scope of
faith], restore the correct meaning (ορθην
την διανοιαν) of what they had wrongly interpreted” (c.
Arian. III. 35). St. Athanasius contended that the
“correct” interpretation of particular texts was only
possible in the total perspective of faith. “What they now
allege from the Gospels they explain in an unsound sense, as
we may discover if we take in consideration
τον σκοπον της καθ ημας τους Χριστιανοθς πιοτεως [the
scope of the faith according to us Christians], and read the
Scripture using it (τον σκοπον,
ton skopon) as the rule—
ωσπερ κανονι χρησαμενοι” (III. 28) On the other hand,
close attention must be given also to the immediate context
and setting of every particular phrase and expression, and
the exact intention of the writer must be carefully
identified (I. 54).
Writing to Bishop Serapion, on the Holy
Spirit, St. Athanasius contends again that Arians ignored or
missed “the scope of the Divine Scripture” (ad Serap.,
II. 7; cf. ad episc. Eg., 4). The (σκοπος)
skopos was, in the language of St. Athanasius,
a close equivalent of what St. Irenaeus used to denote as (υποθεσις)
ipothesis — the underlying “idea,” the true
design, the intended meaning
(See Guido Müller, Lexicon Athanasianum, sub voce: id
quod quis docendo, scribendo, credendo intendit).
On the other hand, the word σκοπος
skopos was a habitual term in the exegetical
language of certain philosophical schools, especially in
Neoplatonism. Exegesis played a great role in the
philosophical endeavor of that time, and the question of
hermeneutical principle had to be raised. Jamblichos was,
for one, quite formal at this point. One had to discover the
“main point,” or the basic theme, of the whole treatise
under examination, and to keep it all time in mind
[See Karl Prächter, Richtungen und Schulen im
Neuplatonismus, in "Genethalikon" (Carl Roberts zum 8.
März 1910), (Berlin, 1910). Prächter translates skopos
as Zielpunkt or
Grundthema (s. 128 f.). He characterizes the method of
Jamblichos as an "universalistische Exegese" (138). Proclus,
in his Commentary on Timaeus, contrasts Porphyry and
Jamblichos: Porphyry interpreted texts merikoteron,
while Jamblichos did it epoptikoteron, that is
in a comprehensive or syntretic manner: in Tim. I, pp. 204,
24 ff., quoted by Prächter, s. 136.).
St. Athanasius
could well be acquainted with the technical use of the term.
It was misleading, he contended, to quote isolated texts and
passages, disregarding the total intent of the Holy Writ. It
is obviously inaccurate to interpret the term (σκοπος)
skopos in the idiom of St. Athanasius as “the
general drift” of the Scripture. The “scope” of the faith,
or of the Scripture, is precisely their credal core, which
is condensed in the “rule of faith,” as it had been
maintained in the Church and “transmitted from fathers to
fathers,” while the Arians had “no fathers” for their
opinions (de decr., 27). As Cardinal Newman has
rightly observed, St. Athanasius regarded the “rule of
faith” as an ultimate “principle of interpretation,”
opposing the “ecclesiastical sense” (την
εκκλησιαστικην διανοιαν, c. Arian. I. 44) to
“private opinions” of the heretics
[Select Treatises of St.
Athanasius, freely translated by J. H. Cardinal Newman,
Vol. II (Eighth impression, 1900), pp. 250‑252]. Time
and again, in his scrutiny of the Arian arguments, St.
Athanasius would summarize the basic tenets of the
Christian faith, before going into the actual re‑examination
of the alleged proof‑texts, in order to restore texts into
their proper perspective. H. E. W. Turner has described this
exegetical manner of St. Athanasius:
Against the favorite Arian
technique of pressing the grammatical meaning of a text
without regard either to the immediate context or to the
wider frame of reference in the teaching of the Bible as a
whole, he urges the need to take the general drift of the
Church’s Faith as a Canon of interpretation. The Arians are
blind to the wide sweep of Biblical theology and therefore
fail to take into sufficient account the context in which
their proof-texts are set. The sense of Scripture must
itself be taken as Scripture. This has been taken as a
virtual abandonment of the appeal to Scripture and its
replacement by an argument from Tradition. Certainly in less
careful hands it might lead to the imposition of a
strait‑jacket upon the Bible as the dogmatism of Arian and
Gnostic had attempted to do. But this was certainly not the
intention of St. Athanasius himself. For him it represents
an appeal from exegesis drunk to exegesis sober, from a
myopic insistence upon the grammatical letter to the meaning
of intention (σκοπος skopos,
χαρακτηρ haraktir)
of the Bible” (H.E.W. Turner, The Pattern of Christian
Truth, London, 1954, pp. 193‑194).
It seems, however, that Professor Turner exaggerated the
danger. The argument was still strictly scriptural, and, in
principle, St. Athanasius admitted the sufficiency of the
Scripture, sacred and inspired, for the defense of truth (c.
Gentes, I). Only Scripture had to be interpreted in the
context of the living credal tradition, under the guidance
or control of the “rule of faith.” This “rule,” however, was
in no sense an “extraneous” authority which could be
“imposed” on the Holy Writ. It was the same “Apostolic
preaching,” which was written down in the books of the New
Testament, but it was, as it were, this preaching in
epitome. St. Athanasius writes to Bishop Serapion: “Let
us look at that very tradition, teaching, and faith of the
Catholic Church from the very beginning, which the Lord gave
(εδωκεν), the Apostles preached (εκηρυξαν),
and the Fathers preserved (εφυλαξαν).
Upon this the Church is founded” (ad Serap., I. 28).
The passage is highly characteristic of St. Athanasius. The
three terms in the phrase actually coincide: (παραδοσις)
paradosis [tradition] — from Christ himself, (διδασκαλια)
didaskalia [teaching] — by the Apostles, and
(πιστις) pistis [faith]
— of the Catholic Church. And this is the foundation (θεμελιον,
themelion) of the Church — a sole and single
foundation. Scripture
itself seems to be subsumed and included in this
“Tradition,” coming, as it is, from the Lord.
In the
concluding chapter of his first epistle to Serapion St.
Athanasius returns once more to the same point. “In
accordance with the Apostolic faith delivered to us by
tradition from the Fathers, I have delivered the tradition,
without inventing anything extraneous to it. What I learned,
that have I inscribed (ενεχαραξα,
eneharaksa), conformably with the Holy
Scriptures” (c. 33). On an occasion St. Athanasius denoted
the Scripture itself as an Apostolic paradosis (ad
Adelph., 6). It is characteristic that in the whole
discussion with the Arians no single reference was made to
any “traditions” — in plural. The only term of reference was
always “Tradition,” — indeed, the Tradition, the
Apostolic Tradition, comprising the total and integral
content of the Apostolic “preaching,” and summarized in the
“rule of faith.” The unity and solidarity of this Tradition
was the main and crucial point in the whole argument.
The purpose of
exegesis and the “Rule of Worship”
The appeal to Tradition was actually an appeal to
the mind of the Church. It was assumed that the Church had
the knowledge and the understanding of the truth, of the
truth and the “meaning” of the Revelation. Accordingly, the
Church had both the competence and the authority to
proclaim the Gospel and to interpret it. This did not imply
that the Church was “above” the Scripture. She stood by the
Scripture, but on the other hand, was not bound by its
“letter.” The ultimate purpose of exegesis and
interpretation was to elicit the meaning and the intent of
the Holy Writ, or rather the meaning of the Revelation, of
the Heilsgeschichte. The Church had to preach
Christ, and not just “the Scripture.” The use of Tradition
in the Ancient Church can be adequately understood only in
the context of the actual use of the Scripture. The Word was
kept alive in the Church. It was reflected in her life and
structure. Faith and Life were organically interwined.
It
would be proper to recall at this point the famous passage
from the Indiculus de gratia Dei, which was
mistakenly attributed to Pope Celestine and was in fact
composed by St. Prosper of Aquitania: “These are the
inviolable decrees of the Holy and Apostolic See by which
our holy Fathers slew the baneful innovation … Let us regard
the sacred prayers which, in accordance with apostolic
tradition our priests offer uniformly in every Catholic
Church in all the world. Let the rule of worship lay down
the rule of faith.” It is true, of course, that this phrase
in its immediate context was not a formulation of a general
principle, and its direct intention was limited to one
particular point: Infant Baptism as an instance pointing to
the reality of an inherited or original sin. Indeed, it was
not an authoritative proclamation of a Pope, but a private
opinion of an individual theologian, expressed in the
context of a heated controversy
[See Dom M. Capuyns,
L’origine des Capitula Pseudo‑Celestiniens contre les
Semipelagiens, in ‘Révue Bénédictine,’ t. 41 (1929), pp.
156-170; especially Karl Federer, Liturgie und Glaube,
Eine theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchung (Freiburg in
der Schweiz, 1950.
Paradosis,
IV; cf. Dom B. Capelle, Autorité de la liturgie chèz les
Pères, in ‘Recherches de Théologie ancienne et médiévale,’
t. XXI (1954), pp. 5‑22].
Yet, it was not just an accident, and not a
misunderstanding, that the phrase had been taken out of its
immediate context and slightly changed in order to express
the principle: ut legem credendi statuat lex orandi
[So that the rule of worship should establish the rule of
faith]. “Faith” found its first expression precisely in the
liturgical, sacramental, rites and formulas — and “Creeds”
first emerged as an integral part of the rite of initiation.
“Credal summaries of faith, whether interrogatory or
declaratory, were a by‑product of the liturgy and reflected
its fixity or plasticity,” says J. N. D. Kelly
[J. N. D. Kelly, Early
Christian Creeds London, 1950), p. 167].
“Liturgy,” in the wide and comprehensive sense of the word,
was the first and initial layer in the Tradition of the
Church, and the argument from the lex orandi [Rule of
worship] was persistently used in discussion already by the
end of the Second century. The Worship of the Church was a
solemn proclamation of her Faith. The baptismal invocation
of the Name was probably the earliest Trinitarian formula,
as the Eucharist was the primary witness to the mystery of
Redemption, in all its fulness. The New Testament itself
came to existence, as a “Scripture,” in the Worshipping
Church. And Scripture was read first in the context of
worship and meditation.
St. Basil and
“Unwritten Tradition”
Already St. Irenaeus used to refer to “faith” as it
had been received at baptism. Liturgical arguments were used
by Tertullian and St. Cyprian [See Federer, op. cit.,
s. 59 ff.; F. De Pauw, La justification des traditions
non écrites chèz Tertullien, in ‘Ephemerides Theologicae
Lovanienses,’ t. XIX, 1/2, 1942, pp. 5‑46. Cf. also Georg
Kretschmar, Studien zur frühchristlichen
Trinitätstheologie (Tübingen, 1956)]. St.
Athanasius and the Cappadocians used the same argument. The
full development of this argument from the liturgical
tradition we find in St. Basil. In his contest with the
later Arians, concerning the Holy Spirit, St. Basil built
his major argument on the analysis of doxologies, as they
were used in the Churches. The treatise of St. Basil, De
Spiritu Sancto, was an occasional tract, written in the
fire and heat of a desperate struggle, and addressed to a
particular historic situation.
But St. Basil was concerned
here with the principles and methods of theological
investigation. In his treatise St. Basil was arguing a
particular point — indeed, the crucial point in the sound
Trinitarian doctrine — the homotimia of the Holy
Ghost. His main reference was to a liturgical witness: the
doxology of a definite type (“with the Spirit”),
which, as he could demonstrate, has been widely used in the
Churches. The phrase, of course, was not in the Scripture.
It was only attested by tradition. But his opponents would
not admit any authority but that of the Scripture. It is in
this situation that St. Basil endeavored to prove the
legitimacy of an appeal to Tradition. He wanted to show that
the omotimia (ομοτιμια)
of the Spirit, that is, his Divinity, was always believed in
the Church and was a part of the Baptismal profession of
faith. Indeed, as Père Benoit Pruche has rightly observed,
the omotimos (ομοτιμιος),
was for St. Basil an equivalent of the omousios
(ομοουσιος)
[See his introduction to the
edition of the treatise De Spiritu Sancto in ‘Sources
Chrètiennes,’ (Paris, 1945), pp. 28 ss]. There was
little new in this concept of Tradition, except consistency
and precision.
His phrasing, however, was rather peculiar. “Of the dogmata and kerygmata, which are kept in the Church, we
have some from the written teaching (εκ της
εγγραφου διδασκαλιας), and some we derive from the
Apostolic paradosis, which had been handed down en mistirio
(εν μυστηριω). And both have the same
strength (την αυτην ισχυν) in the
matters of piety” (de Spir. S., 66). At first glance
one may get the impression that St. Basil introduces here a
double authority and double standard — Scripture and
Tradition. In fact he was very far from doing so. His use of
terms is peculiar. Kerygmata were for him what in the later
idiom was usually denoted as “dogmas” or “doctrines” — a
formal and authoritative teaching and ruling in the matters
of faith, the open or public teaching. On the other hand,
dogmata were for him the total complex of “unwritten
habits” (τα αγραφα των εθνων), or, in
fact, the whole structure of liturgical and sacramental
life.
It must be kept in mind that the concept, and the term
itself, “dogma,” was not yet fixed by that time, it was not
yet a term with a strict and exact connotation [See the valuable study by
August Deneffe, S.J., Dogma. Wort und Begriff,
in the ‘Scholastik,’ Jg. VI (1931), ss. 381‑400 and 505‑538].
In any case, one should not be embarrassed by the
contention of St. Basil that dogmata were delivered
or handed down, by the Apostles en mistirio (εν
μυστρηω). It would be a flagrant mistranslation if we
render it as “in secret.” The only accurate rendering is:
“by the way of mysteries,” that is — under the form of rites
and (liturgical) usages, or “habits.” In fact, it is
precisely what St. Basil says himself: τα
πλειτα των μυστικων αγραφως ημιν εμπολιτευεται [Most
of the mysteries are communicated to us by an unwritten
way]. The term ta mistika (τα
μυστικα) refers here, obviously, to the rites
of Baptism and Eucharist, which are, for St. Basil, of
“Apostolic” origin. He quotes at this point St. Paul’s own
reference to “traditions,” which the faithful have received
(ειτε δια λογου ειτε δι επιστολης 2
Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:2).
The doxology in question is one
of these “traditions” (71; cf. also 66) — οι
τα περι τας Εκκλησιας εξαρχης διαθεσμοθετησαντες αποστολοι
και πατερες, εν τω κεκρυμμενω και
αφθεγκτω το σεμνον τοις μυστηριοις εφυλασσον [The
Apostles and Fathers who from the very beginning arranged
everything in the churches, preserved the sacred character
of the mysteries in silence and secrecy]. Indeed, all
instances quoted by St. Basil in this connection are of
ritual or liturgical nature: the use of the sign of the
Cross in the rite of admission of Catechumens; the
orientation toward East at prayer; the habit to keep
standing at worship on Sundays; the epiclesis in the
Eucharistic rite; the blessing of water and oil, the
renunciation of Satan and his pomp, the triple immersion, in
the rite of Baptism. There are many other “unwritten
mysteries of the Church,” says St. Basil: τα
αγραφα της εκκλησιας μυστηρια (c. 66
and 67). They are not mentioned in the Scripture. But they
are of great authority and significance.
They are
indispensable for the preservation of right faith. They are
effective means of witness and communication. According to
St. Basil, they come from a “silent” and “private”
tradition: απο της αδημοσιευτου και μυστικης
παραδοσεως εκ της αδημοσιευτου ταυτης και απορρητου
διδασκαλιας [From the silent and mystical tradition,
from the unpublic and ineffable teaching]. This “silent” and
“mystical” tradition, “which has not been made public,” is
not an esoteric doctrine, reserved for some particular
elite. The “elite” was the Church. In fact, “tradition” to
which St. Basil appeals, is the liturgical practice of the
Church. St. Basil is referring here to what is now denoted
as disciplina arcani [The discipline of secrecy]. In
the fourth century this “discipline” was in wide use, was
formally imposed and advocated in the Church. It was related
to the institution of the Catechumenate and had primarily an
educational and didactic purpose.
On the other hand, as St.
Basil says himself, certain “traditions” had to be kept
“unwritten” in order to prevent profanation at the hands of
the infidel. This remark obviously refers to rites and
usages. It may be recalled at this point that, in the
practice of the Fourth century, the Creed (and also the
Dominical Prayer) were a part of this “discipline of
secrecy” and could not be disclosed to the non‑initiated.
The Creed was reserved for the candidates for Baptism, at
the last stage of their instruction, after they had been
solemnly enrolled and approved. The Creed was communicated,
or “traditioned,” to them by the bishop orally and
they had to recite it by memory before him: the ceremony of
traditio and redditio symboli. [Transmission
and Repetition (by the initiated) of the Creed].
The
Catechumens were strongly urged not to divulge the Creed to
outsiders and not to commit it to writing. It had to be
inscribed in their hearts. It is enough to quote there the
Procatechesis of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, cap 12 and
17. In the West Rufinus and St. Augustine felt that it was
improper to set the Creed down on paper. For that reason
Sozomen in his History does not quote the text of the
Nicene Creed, “which only the initiated and the mystagogues
have the right to recite and hear” (hist. eccl. 1.20)
. It is against this background, and in this historic
context, that the argument of St. Basil must be assessed and
interpreted. St. Basil stresses strongly the importance of
the Baptismal profession of faith, which included a formal
commitment to the belief in the Holy Trinity, Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit (67 and 26). It was a “tradition” which had
been handed down to the neophytes “in mystery” and had to be
kept “in silence.” One would be in great danger to shake
“the very foundation of the Christian faith” —
το στερεωμα της Χριστον πιστεως — if
this “unwritten tradition” was set aside, ignored, or
neglected (c. 25). The only difference between dogma
(δογμα) and kirigma (κηρυγμα)
was in the manner of their transmission: dogma is kept “in
silence” and kerygmata are “publicized:”
το μεν γαρ σιωπαται,
τα δε κηρυγματα δημοσειυονται.
But their intent is
identical: they convey the same faith, if in different
manners. Moreover, this particular habit was not just a
tradition of the Fathers — such a tradition would not have
sufficed: uk eksarki. In fact, “the Fathers”
derived their “principles” from “the intention of the
Scripture” — τω βουληματι της Γραφης
λαβοντες [Following the intention of the Scripture,
deriving their principles from the scriptural witnesses].
Thus, the “unwritten tradition,” in rites and symbols, does
not actually add anything to the content of the Scriptural
faith: it only puts this faith in focus
[Cf. Hermann Dörries, De
Spiritu Sancto, Der Beitrag des Basilius zum Abschluss des
trinitarischen Dogmas (Göttingen, 1956); J. A.
Jungmann, S.J., Die Stellung Christi im liturgischen
Gebet, 2. Auflage (Münster i/W, 1962), ss. 155 ff., 163
ff.; Dom David Amand, L’ascese monastique de Saint
Basile, Editions de Maredsous (1949), pp. 75‑85. The
footnotes in the critical editions of the treatise De
Spiritu S. by C. F. H. Johnson (Oxford, 1892) and
by Benoit Pruche, O.P. (in the ‘Sources Chrètiennes,’ Paris,
1945) are highly instructive and helpful. On disciplina
arcani see O. Perler, s.v. Arkandisciplin, in
‘Reallexikon für Antike and Christentum,’ Bd. I (Stuttgart,
1950), ss. 671‑676,. Joachim Jeremias, Die
Abendmahlsworte Jesu (Göttingen, 1949), ss. 59 ff., 78
ff., contended that disciplina arcani could be
detected already in the formation of the text of the
Gospels, and actually existed also in Judaism; cf. the sharp
criticism of this thesis by R. P. C. Hanson, Tradition in
the Early Church (London, 1962), pp. 27 ss].
St. Basil’s appeal to “unwritten tradition” was
actually an appeal to the faith of the Church, to her
sensus catholicus, to the (φρονιμα
εκκλησιατικον) fronima ekklisiatikon
[Ecclesiastical mind]. He had to break the deadlock created
by the obstinate and narrow‑minded pseudo‑biblicism
of his Arian opponents. And he pleaded that, apart from this
“unwritten” rule of faith, it was impossible to grasp the
true intention and teaching of the Scripture itself. St.
Basil was strictly scriptural in his theology: Scripture was
for him the supreme criterion of doctrine (epist.
189.3). His exegesis was sober and reserved. Yet, Scripture
itself was a mystery, a mystery of Divine “economy” and of
human salvation. There was an inscrutable depth in the
Scripture, since it was an “inspired” book, a book by the
Spirit. For that reason the true exegesis must be also
spiritual and prophetic.
A gift of spiritual discernment was
necessary for the right understanding of the Holy Word. “For
the judge of the words ought to start with the same
preparation as the author … And I see that in the
utterances of the Spirit it is also impossible for everyone
to undertake the scrutiny of His word, but only for them who
have the Spirit which grants the discernment” (epist.
204). The Spirit is granted in the sacraments of the Church.
Scripture must be read in the light of faith, and also in
the community of the faithful. For that reason Tradition,
the tradition of faith as handed down through generations,
was for St. Basil an indispensable guide and companion in
the study and interpretation of the Holy Writ. At this point
he was following in the steps of St. Irenaeus and St.
Athanasius. In the similar way Tradition, and especially the
liturgical witness, of the Church was used by St. Augustine [Cf. German Mártil, O.D.,
La tradición en San Agustín a través de la controversia
pelagiana (Madrid, 1942) (originally in ‘Revista
española de Teología,’ Vol. I, 1940, and II, 1942); Wunibald
Roetzer, Des heiligen Augustinus Schriften als
liturgie‑geschichtliche Quelle (München, 1930); see also
the studies of Federer and Dom Capelle, as quoted above].
The Church as
interpreter of Scripture
The Church had the authority to interpret the
Scripture, since she was the only authentic depository of
Apostolic kerygma. This kerygma was
unfailingly kept alive in the Church, as she was endowed
with the Spirit. The Church was still teaching viva voce,
commending and furthering the Word of God. And viva vox
Evangelii [the living voice of the Gospel] was indeed
not just a recitation of the words of the Scripture. It was
a proclamation of the Word of God, as it was heard and
preserved in the Church, by the ever abiding power of the
quickening Spirit. Apart from the Church and her regular
Ministry, “in succession” to the Apostles, there was no true
proclamation of the Gospel, no sound preaching, no real
understanding of the Word of God. And therefore it would be
in vain to look for truth elsewhere, outside of the Church,
Catholic and Apostolic.
This was the common assumption of
the Ancient Church, from St. Irenaeus down to Chalcedon, and
further. St. Irenaeus was quite formal at this point. In the
Church the fullness of truth has been gathered by the
Apostles: plenissime in eam contulerint omnia quae sunt
veritatis [lodged in her hands most copiously are all
things pertaining to truth (adv. hoeres., III.4.1)].
Indeed, Scripture itself was the major part of this
Apostolic “deposite.” So was also the Church. Scripture and
Church could not be separated, or opposed to each other.
Scripture, that is — its true understanding, was only in the
Church, as she was guided by the Spirit. Origen was
stressing this unity between Scripture and Church
persistently. The task of the interpreter was to disclose
the word of the Spirit: hoc observare debemus ut non
nostras, cum docemus, led Sancti Spiritus sententias
proferamus [we must be careful when we teach to present
not our own interpretation but that of the Holy Spirit (in
Rom. 1.3.1)].
And this is
simply impossible apart from the Apostolic Tradition, kept
in the Church. Origen insisted on catholic
interpretation of Scripture, as it is offered in the Church:
audiens in Ecclesia verbum Dei catholice tractari
[hearing in the Church the Word of God presented in the
catholic manner (in Lev. hom., 4.5)]. Heretics, in
their exegesis, ignore precisely the true “intention” or the
voluntas of the Scripture: qui enim neque juxta
voluntatem Scripturarum neque juxta fidei veritatem profert
eloquia Dei, seminat triticum et metit spinas [those who
present the words of God, not in conjunction with the
intention of the Scriptures, nor in conjunction ‘with the
truth of faith, have sown wheat and reaped thorns (in
Jerem. hom., 7.3)]. The “intention” of the Holy Writ and
the “Rule of faith” are intimately correlated and
correspond to each other. This was the position of the
Fathers in the Fourth century and later, in full agreement
with the teaching of the Ancients. With his usual sharpness
and vehemence of expression, St. Jerome, this great man of
Scripture, has voiced the same view:
Marcion and Basilides and
other heretics … do not possess the Gospel of God, since
they have no Holy Spirit, without which the Gospel so
preached becomes human. We do not think that Gospel consists
of the words of Scripture but in its meaning; not on the
surface but in the marrow, not in the leaves of sermons but
in the root of meaning. In this case Scripture is really
useful for the hearers when it is not spoken without Christ,
nor is presented without the Fathers, and those who are
preaching do not introduce it without the Spirit … It is a
great danger to speak in the Church, lest by a perverse
interpretation of the Gospel of Christ, a gospel of man is
made (in Galat., I, 1. II; M. L. XXVI, c. 386).
There is the same preoccupation with the true understanding
of the Word of God as in the days of St. Irenaeus,
Tertullian, and Origen. St. Jerome probably was simply
paraphrasing Origen. Outside of the Church there is no
“Divine Gospel,” but only human substitutes. The true
meaning of Scripture, the sensus Scripturae, that is,
the Divine message, can be detected only juxta fidei
veritatem [in conjunction with the truth of faith],
under the guidance of the rule of faith. The veritas
fidei [the truth of faith] is, in this context, the
Trinitarian confession of faith. It is the same approach as
in St. Basil. Again, St. Jerome is speaking here primarily
of the proclamation of the Word in the Church:
audientibus utilis est
[to those who hear the Word].
St. Augustine
and Catholic Authority
In the same sense we have to interpret the well
known, and justly startling, statement of St. Augustine:
Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae
Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas [Indeed, I should not
have believed the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic
Church had not moved me (c. epistolam Fundamenti,
v.6) ]. The phrase must be read in its context. First of
all, St. Augustine did not utter this sentence on his own
behalf. He spoke of the attitude which a simple believer had
to take, when confronted with the heretical claim for
authority. In this situation it was proper for a simple
believer to appeal to the authority of the Church, from
which, and in which, he had received the Gospel itself:
ipsi Evangelio catholicis praedicantibus credidi. [I
believed the Gospel itself, being instructed by catholic
preachers].
The Gospel and the preaching of the Catholica
belong together. St. Augustine had no intention “to
subordinate” the Gospel to the Church. He only wanted to
emphasize that “Gospel” is actually received always in the
context of Church’s catholic preaching and simply cannot be
separated from the Church. Only in this context it can be
assessed and properly understood. Indeed, the witness of
the Scripture is ultimately “self‑evident,” but only for the
“faithful,” for those who have achieved a certain
“spiritual” maturity, — and this is only possible within the
Church. He opposed this teaching and preaching auctoritas
of the Church Catholic to the pretentious vagaries of
Manichean exegesis. The Gospel did not belong to the
Manicheans. Catholicae Ecclesiae auctoritas [the
authority of the Catholic Church] was not an independent
source of faith. But it was the indispensable principle of
sound interpretation. Actually, the sentence could be
converted: one should not believe the Church, unless one was
moved by the Gospel.
The relationship is strictly reciprocal [Cf. Louis de Montadon,
Bible et Eglise dans l’Apologétique de Saint Augustin,
in the “Recherches de Science réligieuse,” t. II (1911), pp.
233‑238; Pierre Battiffol, Le Catholicisme de Saint
Augustin, 5th ed. (Paris, 1929), pp. 25‑27
(see the whole chapter I, L’Eglise règle de foi); and
especially A. D. R. Polman, The Word of God according to
St. Augustine (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1961), pp.
198‑208 (it is a revised translation of the book published
in Dutch in 1955 ‑ De Theologie van Augustinus, Het Woord
Gods bij Augustinus); see also W. F. Dankbaar,
Schriftgezag en Kerkgezag bij Augustinus, in the
‘Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift,’ XI (1956‑1957), ss.
37‑59 (the article is written in connection with the Dutch
edition of Polman’s book)].
Go to the
Top
Missionary
Leaflet # E 095j
Copyright ©
2004 Holy Trinity Orthodox Mission
466 Foothill Blvd, Box 397, La Canada, Ca 91011
Editor:
Bishop Alexander (Mileant)
|
