I was fortunate to have a theological professor who pointed out that every decision of an ecumenical council, whether dogmatic or disciplinary was introduced by words similar to those found in Acts 15, that is, it seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit, with the addition of a phrase about being in accord the the teaching of the Fathers. In spite of that, while no dogmatic decision has ever been changed, some of the disciplinary canons were changed by the very next council! So, how do we explain that?
Well, the professor pointed out that we are not Western. We do not make juridical arguments about pastoral issues. Actually, we do not even make juridical arguments about doctrinal issues. Rather, what the phrase about being in accord with the teachings of the Fathers means–when we are talking about disciplinary canons–is that we are in accord with the economy of the Holy Spirit regarding this particular issue. Another way to put it is that at this time, in this place, on this issue, it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, to the hierarchs, and it was in accord with the Fathers to make this particular decision about this particular issue. The decision need not be forever. In some very specific cases, the decision need not even be for the whole Church. But, it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to so arrange the Church at this particular time that this was the decision that was reached. I would point out that the prohibition about blood in meat, found in Acts 15, did not actually last very long. Nevertheless, it was a wise decision, in accord with the Holy Spirit, and appropriate for its time, that bloody meat be forbidden.
This attitude also does not mean that we do not do juridical studies. Balsamon, and other commentators like him, are proof that previous decisions are consulted; precedent is important; what the Fathers have said before is not to be easily overturned. Nevertheless, Holy Tradition, in its broadest meaning, is that certain sense of the Holy Spirit present within the Church that allows her to make the right decisions at the right time so that the Church may be able to carry on and so that the gates of Hell may not be able to prevail against her. The Church is infallible in the sense that the decisions that she makes are either fully doctrinally correct for all time, or are, by and large, pastorally correct for the time in which they are made. This does not mean that pastoral decisions cannot be changed. This does not mean that pastoral decisions do not participate in the cultural ethos of the time. Rather, it means that the dogmatic decisions that were made are correct for all time, and the pastoral decisions that were made were appropriate for the time in which they were made. [Note: some parts of Holy Tradition, like the innate structure of the service, the fact that Sundays are Eucharistic, etc., are not considered changeable, but that is another subject. Also, the Holy Scriptures, themselves, are, in some sense, also a part of Holy Tradition, but that, too, is another subject.]
This does not mean that all of the Church’s decisions are perfect and without fault. In some cases, the Church approved fully evil actions, such as the pogroms that were set loose against the Jews. In some cases, the Church made decisions that led to certain problems down the road. Nor does this mean that every individual bishop is correct in all that he says. Rather, it means that, in the overall scheme of things, the Church is correct in all of its dogmatic proclamations and is, overall, correct in its pastoral handling of the times. Because individual bishops, and even individual provinces, and even individual patriarchates can make serious mistakes, Holy Tradition does not mean that every bishop, every province, every patriarchate is correct in all that it does. But, the Church as a whole, the Bride of Christ, is correct in what it declares and what it enjoins.
Perhaps another way to say it is to use our beloved “icon theology.” If you look close at an icon, it is not perfect. The artist has made very small mistakes. Sometimes, the icon is slightly scratched by its handling. The paint may be uneven in place or you can see the brush strokes. The images are deliberately out of proportion and incorrect. Nevertheless, take a step back and meditate and that blessed icon reveals itself as a window to heaven itself. In the same way, look close at the Church and you can see all her imperfections. Step back and she is your Mother and a window to heaven itself.
Finally, let me point out that we do not believe that the Roman Church’s definition of Holy Tradition is correct. We do not believe in ongoing development. We do not believe that any one bishop or any one province or any one patriarchate has the right to make decisions that apply to the whole Church. We strongly disagree with the Roman Church about its ongoing doctrinal development. But, we do believe in the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit within the Church.
The On-going development issue is a big problem:
1) The development exists and can be indicated in the documents, liturgy and teaching of the church. The only way to avoid it is to read backwards. (EG: Palamism can be read backwards into the 4th Century fathers. But it *needn't* be unless you want to make it appear so.)
2) The church does have such issues as "one patriarch deciding" That's how the Liturgy of John Chrysostom got forced on all the other patriarchates – by a decree of the Byzantine emperor. All other liturgies were relegated to *very* minor roles.
As I said: it is a big problem – with Orthodoxy. She turns a blind eye to her own developmental growth.
Huw, I answered this yesterday, but my reply appears to have been eaten alive by the impersonal web.
The way I was taught, and from what I can absorb from my Arab priest friends, the actual detail of the shape of the Divine Liturgy and the development are not issues that destroy Holy Tradition, because the visible Church’s worship is the practical outworking of Holy Tradition. I guess one way to put it is that we received a skeleton that is fleshed out in each generation with the culturally and pastorally appropriate ways to express it. In one way, it reminds me of an icon (what else, right?). Looked at with an analytical eye, an icon is imperfect. You can see the brush strokes, some are scratched, stained with the smoke of years, etc. Nevertheless, they are windows to heaven. So is the Church.
Currently the practical outworking of our worship is leading us towards shorter worship, and fewer feasts being celebrated in the Church. Interestingly enough, the major Patriarchates are not objecting to the changes, although, certainly, there are converts and ultra-orthodox who are. I have watched Arab bishops and priests exercise further economia as necessary without murmur from either congregation or fellow priests. [Mind you, they do not exercise that economia every Sunday, only when necessary.] And, it is obvious that though the skeleton and central parts of the Divine Liturgy are indeed inherited, the entire Liturgy is not to be used as a straightjacket which we must follow in exquisite detail as though it were a juridical document. It is worth remembering that the development of the Divine Liturgy happened among people who culturally were not juridically minded but mystically minded.
Finally, there is such a thing as Providence. It is not all simply human development. That one Patriarch was wrong for declaring that one liturgy as the Liturgy. However, it has become a beloved Liturgy. Having said that, when I was at the St. Stephen’s residential, I was interested to find out that several of the Arab priests with advanced degrees are doing increasing research into the Middle Eastern roots, ways, and practices of Christianity, including a study of Syrian Christianity at the time of the Chalcedonian split. Some of the saints of that time wrote some exquisite poetry that has been lost in the general Hellenization and Latinization of the Church.
I will agree that, in a West eaten alive by Hegelian and post-modern philosophies, not to mention an excessive orientation towards juridical thinking, every slight perturbation, every slight difference is somehow proof of conspiracies, persecutions, suppressions, etc. But, in an East that never insisted on a sameness of worship, those arguments just seem odd. Yep, we have ended up, currently, with St. John Chrysostom’s Liturgy being the celebrated one. And, it is celebrated in a variety of ways, with various litanies being included or excluded, various troparia being included or excluded, with variation in when censings are done (or if), with various local adaptations. With that type of variety, why would various and different beginnings trending towards some uniformity be proof of a lack of Holy Tradition? You know well, from Episcopal teachings, that there were clearly some universals. The sacred meal, the recitation of the story, that He took, blessed, broke, gave, etc. Much of the rest is variety. And, much variety continues to this day.
The odd thing is not that you and I disagree on what happened (or is happening) – for we clearly agree – but that you don't see that as development of Tradition.
This is actually one of my major frustrations, not as a convert, or as uber-pious as I was, but as logical as I am: I don't see it as black and white. There is a glorious dance, filled with shades of grey and lavender and kelly green (etc). You only have to look directly at it to see it change every day. But then someone comes along and says "The Church that never changes" (Frederica) or "Holy Tradition doesn't develop" and I have to roll my eyes.
Hearing you talk of "Arab priests with advanced degrees are doing increasing research into the Middle Eastern roots, ways, and practices of Christianity, including a study of Syrian Christianity at the time of the Chalcedonian split." makes me think of the clergy at St Gregory of Nyssa church in SF researching and reusing Ancient Christian Practices. That parish was soundly trounced by many Orthodox for reviving customs long since dropped. But your Arab priests are doing the same thing (as are the Monks at New Skete).
To put the frustration in one sentence: the Orthodox churches are each dealing with the same issues, the same things as all the other denominations while living in a state of denial, saying "no, we don't do that here"; and, somehow, manages to have people enable or support that line – even while doing the change/evolution themselves.
Maybe because it is a different set of glasses. The various Arab professors I had all could equally trace the developments of various parts of the Liturgy. In fact, dare I say it, they were much more aware of it than many who speak glibly of the development of the Liturgy. But, they do not “worry” over each detail of the Liturgy, as to whether it is fully in accord with Holy Tradition or not.
But, let me back up a minute. “Catholic” groups, of whatever stripe, would all tend to say that there was allowable development in the first couple of centuries of Church life. That is, what you see in Acts has changed by the Pastoral Epistles. And, what is perceived in the Pastoral Epistles receives its development during the next century or two. In other words, there is the feeling that the Holy Spirit truly guided. However, in some ways, the Orthodox are significantly more conservative than the West. The reason why the Orthodox insist so strongly on the Church being present with a single bishop is not merely a slap at the Roman Catholic Church. Rather, I am beginning to realize, it is because they hold that the structure of the Church (patriarchates, etc.) belong to pastoral outworking of Holy Tradition rather than to the dogmatic outworking. They still conservatively hold to the oldest perception found in the Early Church, right after the Pastoral Epistles, one bishop equals one Church. Now, mind you, eventually you do have to say that it does appear that the Holy Spirit definitely wanted some certain structure in place. I, again, repeat that there is a place for Providence. But, the Church does have real authority to structure itself. Nevertheless, if a Tsar removes the Patriarch and works with a Synod of Bishops, then the Church just keeps on going. Nothing essential has been destroyed. If a Church, such as the OCA, exists in a bit of an in-between place, insofar as structure, nevertheless, it exists. Nothing essential has been destroyed. But, if a group claims to exist but is not recognized, in general, by the Patriarchates, then it does not exist, regardless of its vaunted apostolic succession.
In other words, though I am still “catching it,” the Eastern view of Holy Tradition is not as juridical and detail oriented as the Western view. Perhaps it is like the old saying. The West looks at the trees and sees all species of trees with a huge variety. The East looks at the forest and sees a forest full of beauty. I do not think it is self-denial nor a closing of eyes. Rather, it is a non-juridical approach. I am explaining myself badly.
But every thing you have described *is* the development / evolution of Tradition.
I don't disagree with what you're saying: but I insist that what you describe is the very thing the Orthodox say doesn't happen. That's the problem. It's the hat trick: we say Tradition doesn't change therefore that change you see there isn't what you think it is. The heck it's not, pardon my French! The Orthodox Church lives with evolution of Tradition just like everyone else: she just calls it other things – and then suffers from denial when she's called on it. You are doing it right now.
It's as I said several times before I left Orthodoxy: it's all (t)radition and that's ok. But it's silly to pretend otherwise.
Sent from my iPod
The way I was taught, and from what I can absorb from my Arab priest friends, the actual detail of the shape of the Divine Liturgy and the development are not issues that destroy Holy Tradition, because the visible Church’s worship is the practical outworking of Holy Tradition.
To my eyes this seems quite in accordance with the Roman Catholic doctrine of development – as in precisely fleshing out.
The danger for either Orthodox or Roman Catholic is when the practical fleshing out of Holy Tradition becomes itself considered Holy Tradition, without thought or warrant, so that when adjustments happen in another time and place, it becomes all too easy to charge that heresy has happened. One example of that is the Old Calendarist split which has made a secular calendric system that was in use at the time of the Council to be the calendric system that must be used forever.