Christian Tradition

No clear notion of the true meaning of Tradition can be reached without constantly keeping in mind the well-known condemnation of "human traditions" by the Lord Himself. The one Holy Tradition, which constitutes the self-identity of the Church through the ages and is the organic and visible expression of the life of the Spirit in the Church, is not to be confused with the inevitable, often creative and positive, sometimes sinful, and always relative accumulation of human traditions in the historical Church.

The distinction between "Tradition" and "traditions" is certainly one of the major tasks of the contemporary ecumenical dialogue, and it constitutes one of the most urgent responsibilities of Orthodox theologians. For even outside of its ecumenical involvement, the Orthodox Church faces this problem with a particular acuity.

An Orthodox generally conceives his Christianity as an integral whole which finds its expression in doctrinal convictions as well as in liturgical worship and in whatever attitude he takes as a Christian. This attitude is quite different from that of the average Roman Catholic, who is much more ready to accept change when it comes from the proper authority. Its psychological root is in the absence of an absolute, permanent doctrinal power and in the positive sense of responsibility that an Orthodox usually has for the integrity of his faith. He is, consciously or unconsciously, but rightly, aware of the fact that all acts of worship have some doctrinal implications and that true Christianity is to be taken as a whole set of beliefs and attitudes. At an elementary level, when he is not able to make the necessary distinctions between the essential and the secondary, he prefers to preserve everything. The formal and ritualistic conservatism of Eastern Christians undoubtedly played a positive role in history. It helped them to preserve their faith during the dark ages of the Mongolian and Turkish occupations. However, it does not reflect as such the catholicity of the Church. Today, it represents a problem which Orthodox theologians have to handle if they want to face seriously not only the modern world and the ecumenical movement, but also a number of reformist movements inside the Orthodox world itself. The first task of Orthodox theology today must be to rediscover, through a true sense of catholicity, the role of the one, holy Tradition of the Church, as distinct from the pseudo-absolute and human traditions. If one turns to the past of the Church, it is surprising how many traditional authorities one can find to support this rediscovery, especially in documents related to the schism between East and West.

Since apostolic times Christians have always conceived their unity as unity in faith, although it was obvious that every local church could express this faith in its own language, liturgical rite, and, originally, even in its own baptismal creed. This linguistic and liturgical variety did not at all prevent church unity from remaining a very practical reality. In the second century Irenaeus could speak of a unique apostolic Tradition equally well preserved in Rome, Smyrna, and Ephesus. When Christological controversies broke the unity of the Eastern Church, the situation began to change. The schism roughly followed existing cultural and linguistic boundaries, and a majority of non-Greek Eastern Christians (Copts, Syrians, Armenians, Ethiopians) adopted mono-physitic confessions of faith. The Orthodox Chalcedonian churches followed Rome and Constantinople, and their influence was practically restricted to the Graeco-Latin world of the Roman Empire. Finally, this unity was itself broken with the great schism between the Ancient and the New Rome, again following racial and linguistic lines.

In the fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries all contacts between Greeks and Latins implicitly presupposed, at least in Byzantine minds, that reunified Christendom would preserve a variety of local traditions. Nicholas Cabasilas, in speaking of the epiclesis of the Spirit at the Eucharist, recalls the Latin rite itself as an argument in favor of the Byzantine position; there is no doubt that for him the Latin liturgical tradition possesses a catholic authenticity.

In modern times this attitude has become practically universal. In 1895, for instance, the Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimos and his synod expressed it in their reply to the encyclical Praeclara gratulationis of Pope Leo XIII; the union of the churches can be realized through unity of faith, but this unity does not imply a unification of "the order of the holy services, hymns, liturgical vestments and other similar things which, even when they preserve their former variety, do not endanger the essence and unity of the faith."

The establishment of a clear distinction between the holy "Tradition" as such, and the human traditions created by history, is probably the most essential aspect of contemporary theology, especially when and if it wants to be ecumenical. The very reality of Tradition, a living and organic reality manifesting the presence of the Spirit in the Church and therefore also its unity, cannot be fully understood unless it is clearly distinguished from everything which creates a normal diversity inside the one Church. To disengage Holy Tradition from the human traditions which tend to monopolize it is in fact a necessary condition of its preservation, for once it becomes petrified into the forms of a particular culture, it not only excludes the others and betrays the catholicity of the Church, but it also identifies itself with a passing and relative reality and is in danger of disappearing with it.

Therein lies a very urgent problem for contemporary Orthodoxy, especially in connection with its ecumenical responsibility and involvement. There was a time when the "Christian East" as such stirred enthusiasm in ecumenical circles as a beautiful, exotic, and mysterious tradition, attractive because it was "different." With the growth of mutual knowledge and information this phase now belongs to the past, simply because the ecumenical movement has been taken seriously by its participants. While still appreciative of the possible contributions which could be made by local traditions to the catholic reality of the Una Sancta, they look forward to the One Church itself. The union of all is the fundamental aim of ecumenical activity and thought. The obvious Orthodox responsibility is to show where this union can become a reality and how it can be realized. The claim of the Orthodox Church to be already the Una Sancta must be substantiated in the empirical reality of its life, so that it may really appear also as the Catholica. This is precisely the goal of the internal reformation which the Roman Church is seeking presently in order to substantiate her own similar claim.

But all these efforts will bring forth fruit only if they end upon an encounter, not only with each other, but also with the Lord in the Spirit of Truth. To be truly "ecumenical" is to be ready at every moment for this encounter, which will come on a day and at an hour when we least expect it.

From: Living Tradition by Fr. John Meyendorff, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, NY, 1978