theophiliacs

NOTE: This post is part of a larger series discussing Ecclesial Authority

Part I: Introduction

Part II: Scripture

Part III: Tradition

Part IV: History/Reason

Part V: Personal and Communal Experience

Part VI: Authority Revisited (UNFINISHED)

II. Sacred/Holy Tradition as Chief Authority
Faith Traditions: Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Some Anglicans
Argument: “Sacred Tradition.” What Christ started, the Apostles and those in their subsequent succession finished. This Alternative is dependent on the idea that Truth began with Christ and is being revealed through the Authority of Apostolic Succession. While Roman and Eastern Christians disagree on just where that Succession is today, their allegiance to it through faithful obedience to centuries of Christian leaders is the same.
Nice Quote: “…the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.” -Second Vatican Council Dei Verbum

Pros:
1. Concept (real or imagined) of the firm existence of Empirical Truth: Here we find the same idea as what Alternative I offered. Except instead of an ancient book, we have “that guy.” Be it the Pope, or an Ecumenical Council, the Traditionalist can point to something and say, “that’s the way it is, period.”
2. Little Room for Subjectivity = Amazing Unity Until you’ve participated in an Orthodox (or Catholic) liturgy (mass) and had the realization you are practicing a faith that millions of Christians world wide are also experiencing—that you are not only connecting to other living Christians, but dead Christians from hundreds of years ago. The simple fact that I might have very little in common with a Lebanese working class mother on the other side of the world, but that we none-the-less belong to each other because we both belong to Christ is a powerful and spiritual experience that I don’t have the means to explain here.
3. Connection to the Ancient Church Even a casual reading through the Apostolic Fathers will reveal a heavy emphasis on one thing: unity no matter what. Ignatius wrote a number of letters on his trip to Rome to be martyred and in each epistle he repeatedly emphasized the necessity of sticking to your Bishop. It was through that Bishop that the church could exist, through that Bishop that ordinary people experienced the Eucharist that brought them into communion with God. Traditionalists carry a strong connection to this ancient Church that no other Alternative can muster.
4. A Claim to Orthodoxy It’s from tradition (not the Bible) that we get so many tenets of what is considered “orthodox Christianity” today. The Trinity, the dual-nature of Christ, the second-coming, original sin, heaven and hell, etc… the Bible has very little to say about these things specifically. It was from the teachings of the early Church fathers (along with their particular interpretations of the ancient texts that make up the Bible) that the Ecumenical Councils decided on these things.

Cons:
1. Potential for Misuse of Power: While a leader in any of the Alternatives I’ve listed here are liable to misuse their power, Tradition is at the greatest risk. The darkest parts of human history started when a few men were given innumerable power without any accountability. I should mention that both Romans and Eastern Christians have learned from historical mistakes but I don’t think the opportunity for misuse on a smaller scale is out of the question now or in the future.
2. “Adding to the faith”: This is really an extension of Con #1, but inevitably, as Christian tradition developed, it began to take on the cultural baggage of its times. Many would criticize the Catholics for things like Indulgences, Purgatory, the Assumption of Mary, etc… but I believe every Christian tradition has its own special additions that were relevant for a certain time but are now bothersome trip ups for their adherents today. (The Assemblies of God is less than a century old and already the doctrine of “Initial Physical Evidence” threatens to split their movement in the USA.)
Ultimately, everyone chooses a point in historical tradition to adhere to. The Eastern Christians stop after the seventh Ecumenical Council, the Romans stop with the Pope, the Reformed stop at the Reformation, the Pentecostals stop with Azusa etc…
3. Exclusivism While any Alternative is by definition exclusive (even liberal, so-called “inclusive” movements have no place for conservatives in their folds) the Sacred Tradition Alternative is perhaps the most limiting. In order to participate in Eucharist (and thus be considered part of the church) one must be in full agreement with the tenets of tradition. There is no “invisible church” that spans movements and congregations. There are no such things as “branches,” regrettably in schism but each with their own particular contribution to make.