[ Home ]  [ Book of Confessions ]  [ 1. Ancient Symbols ]  [ 4. Symbolical Books ]  [ 5. Expositions of the Faith ]

Introduction


I. Preface & Background

Adapted from Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Orthodox Church by Fr John Fenton.


Creedal statements and confessions of faith have a long and storied history in the Church and among other Christian communions. Some of the Church’s creeds or confessions are very simple and straight-forward. Others are rather long and complex. Some have been formulated chiefly for liturgical use—such as the Apostolic Creed used in the Western Orthodox baptismal rite. Others have been formulated in the face of heresy—such as the Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon. And one in particular serves double duty: formulated in the face of heresy to describe the Orthodox faith, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed also is recited at least every Sunday at the Church’s Mass or Divine Liturgy. All creeds or confessions of faith, even the shortest and “simplest,” employ technical theological and philosophical language which, in turn, requires further explanation, instruction or interpretation. Some employ words that are invented, resurrected, redefined, or highly nuanced in order to explain difficult or unthinkable concepts.

Yet the key question is not how to classify or distinguish creeds or confessions. The key question is, “What is the purpose and role of a creed or confession of faith?” The Church’s answer has consistently been that creeds and confessions of faith provide the ????? ???????, the pattern or “form of sound words…in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim 1.13) As such, creeds and confessions establish acceptable phrases while simultaneously circumscribing unacceptable patterns of speech. These patterns of sound words, in turn, are multivalent in their application to theology. As an example, consider the phrase “begotten, not made.” With these three words the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed declares that the Arian notions of the creation by God of His latter-made Son are outside the boundary of the Orthodox faith. The phrase, however, also establishes the notion that the “begottenness” of the Son refers not to the commencement of a new essence or being, but to the eternal relationship between two consubstantial persons. At the same time, the words “begotten, not made” provide an hermeneutic for certain seemingly difficult passages (e.g., Prov 8.22-31). Finally, that little phrase becomes the common linguistic coin of all anti- Arians—the terse, simple way of recalling what the Church confesses and believes about the Son of God.

As one becomes acquainted with the history, the immediate context and the early use of the various creeds or confessions of faith, one is tempted to conclude that the “pattern of sound words” in creeds or confessions of faith are primarily, if not exclusively, a summary of theological data drawn either from the Bible or from interpretations of the Bible. To be sure, creeds and confessions are summaries. However, to see them chiefly as summaries of data runs the risk of locating creeds and confessions of faith within an unOrthodox concept of a “development of doctrine.” For it seems reasonable that, if creeds and confessions collect and summarize theological data, then creeds and confessions do not articulate and describe the norm “which always, at all times, by everyone” has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus). Rather, they give one perspective— perhaps even a very important perspective—of the Faith. If that is the case, then creeds and confessions of faith do not articulate what has always been believed, but rather provide a forum by those in control to determine, delineate and promulgate what should be believed based on approved interpretations. Many historians of church doctrine and theology, trained as they are in the critical science of history, have concluded precisely this; namely, that creeds and confessions of faith are chiefly means of imposing, from a position of might, a particular theological conclusion on the aberrant or the “party not in power.” Frankly, some of the behavior at councils and synods seems to bolster the historian’s case. However, despite the machinations of politically savvy bishops or emperors, the Church has accepted various creeds and confessions not because she acquiesced to either majority rule or a desire for peace. For the Church, creeds and confessions serve not pride but faith.

Therefore, the Church embraces particular creeds and confessions because they articulate that which the Church believes, confesses and teaches.

When one considers this triadic role that creeds and confessions play—the role of articulating what the Church believes, confesses and teaches everywhere, by all, and at all times—Jaroslav Pelikan reminds us that most often the emphasis has landed rather heavily on doctrine, rather than on believing and confessing. (Pelikan, Credo, 53.) When doctrine takes center stage and becomes the lead character, creeds and confessions are squeezed into an academic mold—a mold that is concerned chiefly with precision; that seeks to distinguish sometimes to the point of schism; that reveres the classroom; that sees catechesis as the Church’s chief activity; and that eventually sees liturgy as one among several educational exercises. It is not Orthodox to belittle doctrine, or to seek to subjugate doctrine to mystical experience or mysticism. The greatest mystics were men of doctrine and catechesis; men who considered, explained and described the experience, the living, of the faith. Yet they also realized the proper place of doctrine; namely, that teaching, per se, does not lead to faith, but rather comes from what is believed and confessed. In other words, while creeds or confessions of faith state what is believed, doctrine then teaches what is confessed.

The Holy Apostle Paul states that if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For, with the heart, we believe unto justice; [and] with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation. (Rom 10.9- 10) He then continues by speaking about preaching—the act of proclaiming or teaching the kyregma; that is, content of what is believed and confessed. Let me suggest that we do well to pay attention to the ordering of the concepts by the holy apostle. It is not unlike the order of the words when the Lord says, You are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that you may know, and believe me, and understand that I myself am. (Is 43.10) The word order the Lord chooses indicates theological priority: we know (??????) and believe and understand. In other words, we do not understand in order to believe so that we might know. Rather, we understand what we believe due to the knowing—the profound relationship—we have in and with God. In the same way, the Holy Apostle states that believing begets confessing which, in turn, begets proclaiming and teaching. In other words, the triad is “believe, confess and teach.”

Now I freely admit that I may be parsing the triad of “believe, confess and teach” a bit too finely; for I will also freely admit that the three—believing, confessing and teaching —are symbiotically intertwined and therefore cannot always be neatly separated.

Nevertheless, to understand the Orthodox view of creeds and confessions, it is necessary to understand that doctrine does not form creeds but springs from them; and therefore the primary purpose of creeds or confessions of faith is to articulate doxologically what is believed, rather than to provide content for instruction; and that while creeds or confessions of faith are norms and boundaries for what is taught, that is not their primary role. The primary role of creeds and confessions of faith—and their rightful home—is not the classroom, but the liturgy. I say this not because this is what some of them have become, but because that is where they came from. Consider the two chief confessions of faith—the Apostolic and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creeds. Both begin as regional baptismal creeds —the rite where we come to know the Lord, and where we confess the Lord who makes Himself known to us. I do not consider that coincidental, but elemental to understanding the nature of these creeds that they two in particular began in the liturgy and, to this day, remain in the baptismal liturgies of the Eastern and Western rites of the Church. This doxological use suggests that creeds and confessions of faith do not chiefly systematize theological constructs but describe what it means to know the Lord. (Jer 31.34; Heb 8.11; Hos 6.3) Hence, they are not chiefly about what we know about God or how we describe that knowledge (????????); rather they are about knowing God intimately and faithfully (????? ?). Put yet one more way, creeds and confessions of faith first aid the heart and mouth, and then also the mind, in articulating the God we know (??????) in the profound relationship that the words “faith” and “believing” and “trust” describe.


According to historian Jaroslav Pelikan, Orthodoxy’s particular view of Liturgy as prayed creed indicates “a principal reason for [the] ambivalent position of ‘symbolical books’ within…Orthodoxy.” In the words of Anastasios Kallis, “The identity of Orthodoxy consists neither in a doctrine nor in an organizational system, but in the correct praise of the Triune God, which has its center in the celebration of the Eucharist, or simply in the Liturgy, through which the one congregation assembled in the name of Christ becomes his body, his church.” (In Pelikan, Credo, p. 405.) For this reason the Holy Tradition of the Church is most easily discovered and experienced in the Church’s Liturgy. Books of doctrine or confessions are decidedly secondary to the primary experience of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

From what we learn about the early Church from the lectures of St Cyril of Jerusalem understanding, especialy understanding the holy mysteries, was secondary to the experience of Christ in the mysteries themselves where the Holy Spirit meets the sacred community and transforms it into the Body of Christ. As Fr John Fenton writes:

To be sure, the catechumens were instructed prior to their initiation and incorporation into the Church’s sacramental life. However, first they had to make confession. And then they were instructed chiefly on the basis of what they had seen and heard in the liturgy. In other words, catechesis was not a systematic attempt to instill understanding or cognitive knowledge. Rather, it was an explanation of the relationship that they had entered as catechumens—the relationship or knowing of God which they experienced in the liturgy. Yet they stood, as it were, in the narthex and so were dismissed before the sacred mysteries were dispensed. They were dismissed, not because practice had not caught up with the new political situation, but because the consummation of their knowledge, their relationship, had to wait. As they waited, they were instructed in the Faith, but not yet in the sacraments they would receive— something that might seem rather odd to us. That explanation of the sacraments waited until after they had received them, after they had experienced them, after they entered into the next stage of the relationship, after they had returned, as it were, from the honeymoon. So the catechumens were not instructed or made to understand so that they could better receive and believe what was coming; rather, they were granted understanding after they had come to the knowledge of Truth Himself—a knowledge they came to in the sacred mysteries.

Let us understand, however, that Orthodoxy sees the liturgy as of the Spirit; and that for Orthodoxy liturgy is within the matrix called Tradition. While the comparison is not precise, the frustrated Lutheran might consider Tradition comparable to his Book of Concord. Therefore, to compare apples to apples, he might want to examine Orthodoxy’s liturgy alongside Lutheranism’s confessional documents. While Orthodoxy’s liturgy may be the easiest way for a Lutheran both to compare doctrinal content and to access the Church’s Tradition, one must understand the overall place, use and purpose of creeds and confessions of faith in Orthodoxy. That is what I will endeavor to describe and illustrate in my presentation. I shall first begin by describing how confessing the Faith is a doxological act and not merely a series of propositions. I shall then briefly describe how the Orthodox teaching of the Church underlies the confession of the Faith. And finally I will describe how creeds and confessions of the faith are part of the greater matrix that is the Church’s Tradition. In all this, I ask the Spirit by the prayers of Your Eminence and my learned brethren to correct and guide me should I, a novice, misrepresent in any way the mind of Holy Mother Church.

Notice, then, how creeds and confessions of faith work. They are more than summaries of prophecies, digests of promises, and synopses of inspired revelations. They are statements of who Truth is, and what the Spirit has granted us to know, to believe and to understand. If you will, we may call them cataphatic acclamations and affirmations of the God who is eternally apophatic. As such, they don’t declare new insight as much as they articulate the Truth which has always been.

Fr John Fenton:

Since creeds and confessions of faith are descriptions more than definitions of the Faith, one statement or one set of statements can never be the norm or the rule of faith. To be sure, there is a “canon of the Faith” (????????????????????) or regula fidei. However, this term refers not to one particular statement, or even to a series of approved and authorized statements. Rather, among the earliest theologians—including those who learned from the apostles—“the canon of the Faith” (??????????????????????refers to a matrix of items which we may loosely group around these headings: creeds, confessions of faith, Scriptures, liturgy, accepted interpretations of the fathers, and ethical norms. These groups, while not necessarily exhaustive, are neither interchangeable nor independent. Rather, they are interdependent; and they coexist and cohere in each other. As a unit they are ?????????????????? ??, the regula fidei, which has also been called the Tradition. They can be dogmatically, practically and historically distinguished, but they all convey Truth. Yet it is not true statements or propositional truth that creeds have in common. Rather, what they have in common is the Spirit of Truth, whom Christ sends from the Father, who proceeds from the Father, who bears witness of the Son. (Jn 15.26) This Spirit of Truth the world cannot receive because it seeth Him not nor knoweth Him. (Jn 14.17) And so those of the world can neither see nor believe how this matrix of creeds, liturgy, Scriptures, confessions of faith, church fathers and ethical norms can be one and the same Canon or Tradition. And often, in our critical science-tending minds, we struggle with the same difficulty, wanting to compare creed and confession, or pit church father against Scripture, or pull Scripture out of Tradition, or denigrate liturgy as man-made and therefore correctable and editable as a product of doctrine.

Rather, the creeds and confessions are part of the matrix called Holy Tradition. And these are a few of the “primary principles” within that matrix: The Faith is ultimately doxological rather than dialectical; it is of the heart and mouth before it is of the mind; it is descriptive rather than prescriptive; and while it may be articulated on any number of papers, it is ultimately limited by our feeble words since it is cataphatic expressions of an eternally apophatic mystery.


Jesus Christ, our God and King, is himself the Head of the Church his mystical body and he has never abdicated this position. He has promised to be with us, even unto the end of the age. Since the earliest times in the Church he has made himself known in the Breaking of Bread. We still know him directly in the sacramental life of prayer and through the Holy Mysteries.

Jesus Christ promised that he would send us his Holy Spirit to be our Comforter and to lead us into All Truth. Christ taught his Disciples concerning Himself and the 'Way of Life.' The Holy Spirit casued them to remember all that Jesus had taught them as they passed that 'Way of Life' on to the next generation. Since Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit will never abandon their Holy Church, what the Holy Prophets and Apostles have passed on to us, whether in speech or writing, is cherished and venerated as the Revelation of God. This is the All-Truth that we have been led into charismatically by the Holy Spirit. This is what the Orthodox call 'Holy Tradition,' the 'living continuity between the apostolic community of the early Church and the community that succeeds it.' This continuity of Life is the very same faith, teachings, doctrine, and Christian life that continues to be present throughout the history of the Church.


The late Fr. Georges Florovsky wrote that:

'Tradition is not a principle striving to restore the past, using the past as a criterion for the present. Such a conception of tradition is rejected by history itself and by the consciousness of the Orthodox Church... Tradition is the constant abiding of the Spirit and not only the memory of words. Tradition is a charismatic, not a historical event' ('The Catholicity of the Church' in Bible, Church, Tradition, p. 47).

In other words, Holy Tradition is a gift of the Holy Spirit, a living experience, which is revealed and renewed through time. It is the true faith that is revealed by the Holy Spirit to the true people of God.

Since Tradition is the 'Way of Life' therefore it cannot be reduced to a mere enumeration of quotations from the Scriptures or from the Fathers. It is the fruit of the incarnation of the Word of God, His crucifixion and resurrection as well as His ascension, all of which took place in space and time. Tradition is an EXTENSION of the life of Christ into the life of the Church. According to St. Basil, it is the continuous presence of the Holy Spirit:

'Through the Holy Spirit comes our restoration to paradise, our ascension into the kingdom of heaven, our return as adopted sons, our liberty to call God our Father, our being made partakers of the grace of Christ, our being called children of light, our sharing in eternal glory, and, in a word, our being brought into a state of a 'fullness of blessing' (Rom 15: 29), both in this world and in the world to come...' (St. Basil of Caesaria, On the Holy Spirit, XV.)

By the end of the first century of our Christian era, the Kergama, that part of Holy Tradition concerning major teachings of Christ and facts regarding His life and saving work were added to the Christian scriptures. They became part of what by the end of the second century was called the Canon of the Bible, containing forty-nine books of the Old and twenty-seven of the New Testament. However, many more of the teachings of the Lord and of His deeds were not included in this Christian Bible (John 21: 24-25). Even though they were notwritten down, they remained part of the life of the Church, the inheritance of the apostolic community perpetuated through history by the Holy Spirit.

Saint Basil the Great also speaks of the importance of this inheritance of the 'unwritten words' of Christ in Tradition by the Holy Spirit, without which 'the Scripture is reduced to a mere letter.' That is to say an ideology, not the Life in Christ and the living experienec of the Holy Spirit. Saint Basil the Great, in On the Holy Spirit, says:

'Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us ‘in a mystery’ by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay; – no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as having no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more.' (St. Basil of Caesaria, On the Holy Spirit, XXVII.)

Let us be very clear here. The Revelation of God to man in the Church is more than mere words for mere words are simply an 'ideology' and not Life in Christ. But being more than mere words does not mean that Revelation is somhow less that mere words. The Holy Scriptures are God breathed and . . .

In theological terms it means any teaching or practice which has been transmitted from generation to generation throughout the life of the Church. More exactly, paradosis is the very life of the Holy Trinity as it has been revealed by Christ Himself and testified by the Holy Spirit.

St. John the Evangelist speaks about the manifestation of the Holy Trinity:

'For the Life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.' (1 John 1:2)

St Paul makes clear that this Trinitarian doctrine must be accepted by all Christians:

'If any man preach any other gospel to you than you have received (parelavete) let him be condemned.' (Gal 1:8-9)

Speaking about the Holy Eucharist, which is a manifestation of the Holy Trinity, he writes:

'For I have received (parelavon) of the Lord that which I also delivered to you (paredoka).' (1 Cor 11:23)

Again speaking about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, St. Paul writes:

'For I delivered to you (paredoka) first of all that which I also received (parelavon).'

Finally he admonishes:

'Brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions (tas paradoseis) which you have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.' (2 Thes 2:15)



II. Holy Tradition: The Source of the Orthodox Faith

"The Orthodox, when asked positively about the sources of their faith, answer in such concepts as the whole of Scripture, seen in the light of the tradition of the ancient Councils, the Fathers, and the faith of the entire people of God, expressed particularly in the liturgy. This appears to the outsiders as nebulous, perhaps romantic or mystical, and in any case inefficient and unrealistic." -John Meyendorff


With all respect for the Metropolitian Ware, I believe that others, especialy John Myandorf, Michael Pomanski, and Hieromonk Dr.Hiermonk Calinic Berger, have more accurately put it. For one, Ecumenical Councils are not "automaticly infalable" or the heighest authority in the Church. Christ is the Head of the Church and only councils charismaticaly directed by the Holy Spirit to express the faith always believed and passed down from Christ to the Apostles have authority to defend the faith.

Consequently, the "present church" is not the infalable ground and interpeter of truth as if it could interpet the Holy Tradition in a new way contrary to the understanding of the Church in all ages as some have misunderstood the Metropolitian to have said. The "present church" is only authoritateive in so far as it shares the exact same life, whitness, and confession. In other words, the Church does not have the authority to change the truth because the truth is Christ himself.

Thus the experience of Tradition is a living communion with the Holy Spirit, yet the tradition is not living in the sense that it can change. It is expressed differently in different situations and adapted to new conditions for sake of mission and evangelization, but the essence must be kept inviolate.

There is a hierarchy within tradition. Symbols are not mistaken for truth, but expressions of truth in human language. Faithfulness to truth and ability to communicate are the keys. As Pelikan points out, contrary to Protestant and Roman Catholic traditions, latter confessions are less authoritative. Later confessions are seen as deriving their authority not from the maturity of the "present church" but based upon the close resemblance to the Apostolic symbols.

Thus the early symbols cary more weight while the latter symbols are adapted to address new situations.

For this reason, I see tradition as a series of nucli of ecumenical councils with various confessions, trietists, encycles, and theological reflections in orbit both before and after the council. The 9 councils link together in such a way to form a cohesive whole so that one cannot be understood without the others, especialy the sixth which is a hinge. The councils themselves can be understood better through the light of the orbiting traditions and discourse that precede and follow the Council.

It is my goal to present here the primary source texts of this Conciliar Tradition and derivitive Symbolical Books.

The whole E Orthodox Ch. accepts the doctrinal decisions of the 7 oldest ecumenical councils (see Councils and Synods, 4). Some add the Quinisext* (ca. 691–692) and the one held 879–880 at Constantinople under Photius.* After these councils the doctrinal system in the E Orthodox Ch. remained fixed till manifestos were evoked against Romanism and Protestantism in the 17th c.

Since creeds and confessions of faith are descriptions more than definitions of the Faith, one statement or one set of statements can never be the norm or the rule of faith. To be sure, there is a “canon of the Faith” or regula fidei. However, this term refers not to one particular statement, or even to a series of approved and authorized statements.

Rather, among the earliest theologians—including those who learned from the apostles—“the canon of the Faith” refers to a matrix of items which we may loosely group around these headings: creeds, confessions of faith, Scriptures, liturgy, accepted interpretations of the fathers, and ethical norms.

These groups, while not necessarily exhaustive, are neither interchangeable nor independent. Rather, they are interdependent; and they coexist and cohere in each other. As a unit they are the regula fidei, which has also been called the Tradition.


  1. Holy Scripture
  2. The Symbol of Faith (Nicene Creed)
  3. Symbolical Dogma - dogmatic teachings - The valid and authentic interpretation of Scripture in the church defined by the Rules of Faith, Creeds, and Confessions of the:
    1. Seven [Nine] Ecumenical Councils
    2. Latter Councils, Encylicals, & Confessions
    3. Theological Orations, Sermons, and Books of the Fathers
    4. Official Confessions and Catechisms
  4. The Divine Liturgy - liturgical worship
    1. The Prayers of the Church
    2. The Sacraments
    3. Icons
  5. Cannons - canonical discipline - as collected in the Rudder.
    1. The forms, acts, and institutions and liturgies of the early Church.
    2. The cannons and norms of church life addopted by the councils of the Church.
    3. "Economia" alows these cannons to be occasionaly adusted for pastoral reasons.
  6. Sayings of the Fathers (Consensus Patrum or consensus of the Church Fathers) - spiritual life - the larger accords of the teachings of the Fathers and ecclesiastical authors


III. Holy Tradition: by Met. Kalistos Ware

(1 Tim6:20)

A. The inner meaning of tradition

Orthodox history is marked outwardly by a series of sudden breaks: the capture of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem by Arab Mohammedans; the burning of Kiev by the Mongols; the two sacks of Constantinople; the October Revolution in Russia. Yet these events, while they have transformed the external appearance of the Orthodox world, have never broken the inward continuity of the Orthodox Church. The thing that first strikes a stranger on encountering Orthodoxy is usually its air of antiquity, its apparent changelessness. He finds that Orthodox still baptize by threefold immersion, as in the primitive Church; they still bring babies and small children to receive Holy Communion; in the Liturgy the deacon still cries out: ‘The doors! The doors!’ — recalling the early days when the church’s entrance was jealously guarded, and none but members of the Christian family could attend the family worship; the Creed is still recited without any additions.

These are but a few outward examples of something which pervades every aspect of Orthodox life. Recently when two Orthodox scholars were asked to summarize the distinctive characteristic of their Church, they both pointed to the same thing: its changelessness, its determination to remain loyal to the past, its sense of living continuity with the Church of ancient times (See Panagiotis Bratsiotis and Georges Florovsky, in Orthodoxy, A Faith and Order Dialogue, Geneva, 1960). Two and a half centuries before, the Eastern Patriarchs said exactly the same to the Non-Jurors:

"We preserve the Doctrine of the Lord uncorrupted, and firmly adhere to the Faith he delivered to us, and keep it free from blemish and diminution, as a Royal Treasure, and a monument of great price, neither adding any thing, nor taking any thing from it" (Letter of 1718, in G. Williams, The Orthodox Church of the East at the Eighteenth Century, p. 17).

This idea of living continuity is summed up for the Orthodox in the one word Tradition. ‘We do not change the everlasting boundaries which our fathers have set,’ wrote John of Damascus, ‘but we keep the Tradition, just as we received it’ (On Icons, II, 12 (P. G. XCIV, 1297B).

Orthodox are always talking about Tradition. What do they mean by the word? A tradition, says the Oxford Dictionary, is an opinion, belief, or custom handed down from ancestors to posterity. Christian Tradition, in that case, is the faith which Jesus Christ imparted to the Apostles, and which since the Apostles’ time has been handed down from generation to generation in the Church (Compare Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3). But to an Orthodox Christian, Tradition means something more concrete and specific than this. It means the books of the Bible; it means the Creed; it means the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and the writings of the Fathers; it means the Canons, the Service Books, the Holy Icons — in fact, the whole system of doctrine, Church government, worship, and art which Orthodoxy has articulated over the ages. The Orthodox Christian of today sees himself as heir and guardian to a great inheritance received from the past, and he believes that it is his duty to transmit this inheritance unimpaired to the future.

Note that the Bible forms a part of Tradition. Sometimes Tradition is defined as ‘the oral teaching of Christ, not recorded in writing by his immediate disciples’ (Oxford Dictionary). Not only non-Orthodox but many Orthodox writers have adopted this way of speaking, treating Scripture and Tradition as two different things, two distinct sources of the Christian faith. But in reality there is only one source, since Scripture exists within Tradition. To separate and contrast the two is to impoverish the idea of both alike.

Orthodox, while reverencing this inheritance. from the past, are also well aware that not everything received from the past is of equal value. Among the various elements of Tradition, a unique pre-eminence belongs to the Bible, to the Creed, to the doctrinal definitions of the Ecumenical Councils: these things the Orthodox accept as something absolute and unchanging, something which cannot be cancelled or revised. The other parts of Tradition do not have quite the same authority. The decrees of Jassy or Jerusalem do not stand on the same level as the Nicene Creed, nor do the writings of an Athanasius, or a Symeon the New Theologian, occupy the same position as the Gospel of Saint John.

Not everything received from the past is of equal value, nor is everything received from the past necessarily true. As one of the bishops remarked at the Council of Carthage in 257:‘The Lord said, "I am truth." He did not say, I am custom’ (The Opinions of the Bishops On the Baptizing of Heretics, 30). There is a difference between ‘Tradition’ and ‘traditions:’ many traditions which the past has handed down are human and accidental — pious opinions (or worse), but not a true part of the one Tradition, the essential Christian message.

It is necessary to question the past. In Byzantine and post. Byzantine times, Orthodox have not always been sufficiently critical in their attitude to the past, and the result has frequently been stagnation. Today this uncritical attitude can no longer be maintained. Higher standards, of scholarship, increasing contacts with western Christians, the inroads of secularism and atheism, have forced Orthodox in this present century to look more closely at their inheritance and to distinguish more carefully between Tradition and traditions. The task of discrimination is not always easy. It is necessary to avoid alike the error of the Old Believers and the error of the ‘Living Church:’ the one party fell into an extreme conservatism which suffered no change whatever in traditions, the other into a Modernism or theological liberalism which undermined Tradition. Yet despite certain manifest handicaps, the Orthodox of today are perhaps in a better position to discriminate aright than their predecessors have been for many centuries; and often it is precisely their contact with the west which is helping them to see more and more clearly what is essential in their own inheritance.

True Orthodox fidelity to the past must always be a creative fidelity; for true Orthodoxy can never rest satisfied with a barren ‘theology of repetition,’ which, parrot-like, repeats accepted formulae without striving to understand what lies behind them. Loyalty to Tradition, properly understood, is not something mechanical, a dull process of handing down what has been received. An Orthodox thinker must see Tradition from within, he must enter into its inner spirit. In order to live within Tradition, it is not enough simply to give intellectual assent to a system of doctrine; for Tradition is far more than a set of abstract propositions — it is a life, a personal encounter with Christ in the Holy Spirit. Tradition is not only kept by the Church — it lives in the Church, it is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The Orthodox conception of Tradition is not static but dynamic, not a dead acceptance of the past but a living experience of the Holy Spirit in the present. Tradition, while inwardly changeless (for God does not change), is constantly assuming new forms, which supplement the old without superseding them. Orthodox often speak as if the period of doctrinal formulation were wholly at an end, yet this is not the case. Perhaps in our own day new Ecumenical Councils will meet, and Tradition will be enriched by fresh statements of the faith.

This idea of Tradition as a living thing has been well expressed by Georges Florovsky: ‘Tradition is the witness of the Spirit; the Spirit’s unceasing revelation and preaching of good tidings . . . . To accept and understand Tradition we must live within the Church, we must be conscious of the grace-giving presence of the Lord in it; we must feel the breath of the Holy Ghost in it . . . Tradition is not only a protective, conservative principle; it is, primarily, the principle of growth and regeneration . . . Tradition is the constant abiding of the Spirit and not only the memory of words (‘Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church,’ in The Church of God, edited E. L. Mascall, pp. 64-65. Compare G. Florovsky, ‘Saint Gregory Palamas and the Tradition of the Fathers in the periodical Sobornost, series 4, no. 4, 1961, pp. 165-76; and V. Lossky, ‘Tradition and Traditions,’ in Ouspensky and Lossky, The Meaning of Icons, pp. 13-24. To both these essays I am heavily indebted).

Tradition is the witness of the Spirit: in the words of Christ, "When the Spirit of truth has come, he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). It is this divine promise that forms the basis of the Orthodox devotion to Tradition.


B. The outward forms

Let us take in turn the different outward forms in which Tradition is expressed:


1. The Bible

a) The Bible and the Church. The Christian Church is a Scriptural Church: Orthodoxy believes this just as firmly, if not more firmly than Protestantism. The Bible is the supreme expression of God’s revelation to man, and Christians must always be ‘People of the Book.’ But if Christians are People of the Book, the Bible is the Book of the People; it must not be regarded as something set up over the Church, but as something that lives and is understood within the Church (that is why one should not separate Scripture and Tradition). It is from the Church that the Bible ultimately derives its authority, for it was the Church which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture; and it is the Church alone which can interpret Holy Scripture with authority. There are many sayings in the Bible which by themselves are far from clear, and the individual reader, however sincere, is in danger of error if he trusts his own personal interpretation. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked the Ethiopian eunuch; and the eunuch replied: "How can I, unless someone guides me?" (Acts 8:30). Orthodox, when they read the Scripture, accept the guidance of the Church. When received into the Orthodox Church, a convert promises: ‘I will accept and understand Holy Scripture in accordance with the interpretation which was and is held by the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, our Mother’ (On Bible and Church, see especially Dositheus, Confession, Decree 2).

b) The Text of the Bible: Biblical Criticism. The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament, it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. When this differs from the original Hebrew (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation. The best known instance is Isaiah 6:14 — where the Hebrew says ‘A young woman shall conceive and bear a son,’ which the Septuagint translates ‘A virgin shall conceive,’ etc. The New Testament follows the Septuagint text (Matthew 1:23).

The Hebrew version of the Old Testament contains thirty-nine books. The Septuagint contains in addition ten further books, not present in the Hebrew, which are known in the Orthodox Church as the ‘Deutero-Canonical Books’ (3 Esdras; Tobit; Judith; 1, 2, and 3 Maccabees; Wisdom of Solomon; Ecclesiasticus; Baruch; Letter of Jeremias. In the west these books are often called the ‘Apocrypha’). These were declared by the Councils of Jassy (1642) and Jerusalem (1672) to be ‘genuine parts of Scripture;’ most Orthodox scholars at the present day, however, following the opinion of Athanasius and Jerome, consider that the Deutero-Canonical Books, although part of the Bible, stand on a lower footing than the rest of the Old Testament.

Christianity, if true, has nothing to fear from honest inquiry. Orthodoxy, while regarding the Church as the authoritative interpreter of Scripture, does not forbid the critical and historical study of the Bible, although hitherto Orthodox scholars have not been prominent in this field.

c) The Bible in worship. It is sometimes thought that Orthodox attach less importance than western Christians to the Bible. Yet in fact Holy Scripture is read constantly at Orthodox services: during the course of Matins and Vespers the entire Psalter is recited each week, and in Lent twice a week (Such is the rule laid down by the service books. In practice, in ordinary parish churches Matins and Vespers are not recited daily, but only at weekends and on feasts; and even then, unfortunately, the portions appointed from the Psalter are often abbreviated or (worse still) omitted entirely). Old Testament lessons (usually three in number) occur at Vespers on the eves of many feasts; the reading of the Gospel forms the climax of Matins on Sundays and feasts; at the Liturgy a special Epistle and Gospel are assigned for each day of the year, so that the whole New Testament (except the Revelation of Saint John) is read at the Eucharist. The Nunc Dimittis is used at Vespers; Old Testament canticles, with the Magnifcat and Benedictus, are sung at Matins; the Lord’s Prayer is read at every service. Besides these specific extracts from Scripture, the whole text of each service is shot through with Biblical language, and it has been calculated that the Liturgy contains 98 quotations from the Old Testament and 114 from the New (P. Evdokimov, L’Orthodoxie, p. 241, note 96).

Orthodoxy regards the Bible as a verbal icon of Christ, the Seventh Council laying down that the Holy Icons and the Book of the Gospels should be venerated in the same way. In every church the Gospel Book has a place of honour on the altar; it is carried in procession at the Liturgy and at Matins on Sundays and feasts; the faithful kiss it and prostrate themselves before it. Such is the respect shown in the Orthodox Church for the Word of God.


2. The Seven Ecumenical Councils: The Creed

The doctrinal definitions of an Ecumenical Council are infallible. Thus in the eyes of the Orthodox Church, the statements of faith put out by the Seven Councils possess, along with the Bible, an abiding and irrevocable authority.

The most important of all the Ecumenical statements of faith is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which is read or sung at every celebration of the Eucharist, and also daily at Nocturns and at Compline. The other two Creeds used by the west, the Apostles’ Creed and the ‘Athanasian Creed,’ do not possess the same authority as the Nicene, because they have not been proclaimed by an Ecumenical Council. Orthodox honour the Apostles’ Creed as an ancient statement of faith, and accept its teaching; but it is simply a local western Baptismal Creed, never used in the services of the Eastern Patriarchates. The ‘Athanasian Creed’ likewise is not used in Orthodox worship, but it is sometimes printed (without the filioque) in the Horologion (Book of Hours).


3. Later Councils

The formulation of Orthodox doctrine, as we have seen, did not cease with the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Since 787 there have been two chief ways whereby the Church has expressed its mind: a) definitions by Local Councils (that is, councils attended by members of one or more national Churches, but not claiming to represent the Orthodox Catholic Church as a whole) and b) letters or statements of faith put out by individual bishops. While the doctrinal decisions of General Councils are infallible, those of a Local Council or an individual bishop are always liable to error; but if such decisions are accepted by the rest of the Church, then they come to acquire Ecumenical authority (i.e. a universal authority similar to that possessed by the doctrinal statements of an Ecumenical Council). The doctrinal decisions of an Ecumenical Council cannot be revised or corrected, but must be accepted in toto; but the Church has often been selective in its treatment of the acts of Local Councils: in the case of the seventeenth century Councils, for example, their statements of faith have in part been received by the whole Orthodox Church, but in part set aside or corrected.


The following are the chief Orthodox doctrinal statements since 787:

1

The Encyclical Letter of Saint Photius (867)

2

The First Letter of Michael Cerularius to Peter of Antioch (1054)

3

The decisions of ‘the Councils of Constantinople in 1341 and 1351 on the Hesychast Controversy

4

The Encyclical Letter of Saint Mark of Ephesus (1440-1441).

5

The Confession of Faith by Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople (1455-1456)

6

The Replies of Jeremias the Second to the Lutherans (1573-1581)

7

The Confession of Faith by Metrophanes Kritopoulos (1625)

8

The Orthodox Confession by Peter of Moghila, in its revised form (ratified by the Council of Jassy, 1642)

9

The Confession of Dositheus (ratified by the Council of Jerusalem, 1672)

10

The Answers of the Orthodox Patriarchs to the Non-Jurors (1718, 1723)

11

The Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius the Ninth (1848)

12

The Reply of the Synod of Constantinople to Pope Leo the Thirteenth (1895)

13

The Encyclical Letters by the Patriarchate of Constantinople on Christian unity and on the ‘Ecumenical Movement’ (1920, 1952)

These documents — particularly items 5-9 — are sometimes called the ‘Symbolical Books’ of the Orthodox Church, but many Orthodox scholars today regard this title as misleading and do not use it.


4. The Fathers

The definitions of the Councils must be studied in the wider context of the Fathers. But as with Local Councils, so with the Fathers, the judgment of the Church is selective: individual writers have at times fallen into error and at times contradict one another. Patristic wheat needs to be distinguished from Patristic chaff. An Orthodox must not simply know and quote the Fathers, he must enter into the spirit of the Fathers and acquire a ‘Patristic mind.’ He must treat the Fathers not merely as relics from the past, but as living witnesses and contemporaries.

The Orthodox Church has never attempted to define exactly who the Fathers are, still less to classify them in order of importance. But it has a particular reverence for the writers of the fourth century, and especially for those whom it terms ‘the Three Great Hierarchs,’ Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and John Chrysostom. In the eyes of Orthodoxy the ‘Age of the Fathers’ did not come to an end in the fifth century, for many later writers are also ‘Fathers’ — Maximus, John of Damascus, Theodore of Studium, Symeon the New Theologian, Gregory Palamas, Mark of Ephesus. Indeed, it is dangerous to look on ‘the Fathers’ as a closed cycle of writings belonging wholly to the past, for might not our own age produce a new Basil or Athanasius? To say that there can be no more Fathers is to suggest that the Holy Spirit has deserted the Church.


5. The Liturgy

The Orthodox Church is not as much given to making formal dogmatic definitions as is the Roman Catholic Church. But it would be false to conclude that because some belief has never been specifically proclaimed as a dogma by Orthodoxy, it is therefore not a part of Orthodox Tradition, but merely a matter of private opinion. Certain doctrines, never formally defined, are yet held by the Church with an unmistakable inner conviction, an unruffled unanimity, which is just as binding as an explicit formulation. ‘Some things we have from written teaching,’ said Saint Basil, ‘others we have received from the Apostolic Tradition handed down to us in a mystery; and both these things have the same force for piety (On the Holy Spirit, 27 (66)).’

This inner Tradition ‘handed down to us in a mystery’ is preserved above all in the Church’s worship. Lex orandi lex credendi: men’s faith is expressed in their prayer. Orthodoxy has made few explicit definitions about the Eucharist and the other Sacraments, about the next world, the Mother of God, the saints, and the faithful departed: Orthodox belief on these points is contained mainly in the prayers and hymns used at Orthodox services. Nor is it merely the words of the services which are a part of Tradition; the various gestures and actions — immersion in the waters of Baptism, the different anointings with oil, the sign of the Cross, and so on — all have a special meaning, and all express in symbolical or dramatic form the truths of the faith.


6. Canon Law

Besides doctrinal definitions, the Ecumenical Councils drew up Canons, dealing with Church organization and discipline; other Canons were made by Local Councils and by individual bishops. Theodore Balsamon, Zonaras, and other Byzantine writers compiled collections of Canons, with explanations and commentaries. The standard modern Greek commentary, the Pedalion (‘Rudder’), published in 1800, is the work of that indefatigable saint, Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain.

The Canon Law of the Orthodox Church has been very little studied in the west, and as a result western writers sometimes fall into the mistake of regarding Orthodoxy as an organization with virtually no outward regulations. On the contrary, the life of Orthodoxy has many rules, often of great strictness and rigour. It must be confessed, however, that at the present day many of the Canons are difficult or impossible to apply, and have fallen widely into disuse. When and if a new General Council of the Church is assembled, one of its chief tasks may well be the revision and clarification of Canon Law.

The doctrinal definitions of the Councils possess an absolute and unalterable validity which Canons as such cannot claim; for doctrinal definitions deal with eternal truths, Canons with the earthly life of the Church, where conditions are constantly changing and individual situations are infinitely various. Yet between the Canons and the dogmas of the Church there exists an essential connexion: Canon Law is simply the attempt to apply dogma to practical situations in the daily life of each Christian. Thus in a relative sense the Canons form a part of Holy Tradition.


7. Icons

The Tradition of the Church is expressed not only through words, not only through the actions and gestures used in worship, but also through art — through the line and colour of the Holy Icons. An icon is not simply a religious picture designed to arouse appropriate emotions in the beholder; it is one of the ways whereby God is revealed to man. Through icons the Orthodox Christian receives a vision of the spiritual world. Because the icon is a part of Tradition, the icon painter is not free to adapt or innovate as he pleases; for his work must reflect, not his own aesthetic sentiments, but the mind of the Church. Artistic inspiration is not excluded, but it is exercised within certain prescribed rules. It is important that an icon painter should be a good artist, but it is even more important that he should be a sincere Christian, living within the spirit of Tradition, preparing himself for his work by means of Confession and Holy Communion.

Such are the primary elements which from an outward point of view make up the Tradition of the Orthodox Church — Scripture, Councils, Fathers, Liturgy, Canons, Icons. These things are not to be separated and contrasted, for it is the same Holy Spirit which speaks through them all, and together they make up a single whole, each part being understood in the light of the rest.

It has sometimes been said that the underlying cause for the break-up of western Christendom in the sixteenth century was the separation between theology and mysticism, between liturgy and personal devotion, which existed in the later Middle Ages. Orthodoxy for its part has always tried to avoid any such division. All true Orthodox theology is mystical; just as mysticism divorced from theology becomes subjective and heretical, so theology, when it is not mystical, degenerates into an arid scholasticism, ‘academic’ in the bad sense of the word.

Theology, mysticism, spirituality, moral rules, worship, art: these things must not be kept in separate compartments. Doctrine cannot be understood unless it is prayed: a theologian, said Evagrius, is one who knows how to pray, and he who prays in spirit and in truth is by that very act a theologian (On Prayer, 60 (P. G. 79, 1180B)). And doctrine, if it is to be prayed, must also be lived: theology without action, as Saint Maximus put it, is the theology of demons (Letter 20 (P.G. 91, 601C)). The Creed belongs only to those who live it. Faith and love, theology and life, are inseparable. In the Byzantine Liturgy, the Creed is introduced with the words: ‘Let us love one another, that with one mind we may confess Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Trinity one in essence and undivided.’ This exactly expresses the Orthodox attitude to Tradition. If we do not love one another, we cannot love God; and if we do not love God, we cannot make a true confession of faith and cannot enter into the inner spirit of Tradition, for there is no other way of knowing God than to love Him.