7.

 Why is it wrong to consider or speak of Tradition and Scripture as two different things?

            In his book Orthodox Tradition and Modernism, Dr. Constantine Cavarnos gives a much more thorough examination of this matter than the textbook for this course. The professor makes the important point that the term Tradition has been used both in a narrow sense and in a broad sense.

            In the narrow sense, Tradition designates only the unwritten divine word of Apostolic preaching that was not written in Holy Scripture, but was preserved in the Church and was written in the Proceedings of the Synods and in the books of the Holy Fathers. On the other hand, in the broad sense, Tradition includes only the unwritten divine word of Apostolic preaching and the written divine word (sc., the Old and New Testaments). It is in the broad sense that the Apostle Paul uses the word when he instructs: “Brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or letter” (2 Thes 2:15).

            Dr. Cavarnos explains that before the canon of the New Testament was formed, the Fathers and teachers of the Church used the term Tradition in the broad sense. However, he says, “Since the time that the canon of the New Testament was formed, the term Tradition is usually employed in the narrower sense, to designate the unwritten divine work of Apostolic preaching” [p. 10].

            Thus, while the narrow sense became the norm, it is not shown that this narrow sense is used exclusively. Question seven indicates that the broad usage (according to the distinction Cavarnos makes) is preferable, and the quotation in the previous answer shows that the textbook adheres to the broad understanding. When one thinks in this broader sense, Scripture and Tradition are not thought of as two different sources of the Christian faith, for there is only one source: Tradition. Scripture exists within Tradition and forms a part of Tradition.