The function of tradition in the Ancient Church.

Archpriest George Florovsky (1893-1979)

“Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, ni si me catholicae Ecclesiae

commoveret auctoritas.” [Indeed, I should not  have  believed  the

Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church had not moved me].

St. Augustine, contra epist. Manichaei, L1.

St. Vincent of Lerins and tradition.

  The famous dictum of St. Vincent of Lerins was characteristic of the attitude of the Ancient

Church in the matters of faith: .We must hold what has been believed everywhere, always, and

by all. [Commonitorium, 2]. This was at once the criterion and the norm. The crucial emphasis

was here on the permanence of Christian teaching. St. Vincent was actually appealing to the dou-

ble .ecumenicity. of Christian faith . in space and in time. In fact, it was the same great vision

which had inspired St. Irenaeus in his own time: the One Church, expanded and scattered in the

whole world, and yet speaking with one voice, holding the same faith everywhere, as it had been

handed down by the blessed Apostles and preserved by the succession of witnesses: .Which is

being preserved in the Church from the Apostles through the succession of the presbyters.. These

two aspects of faith, or rather . the two dimensions, could never be separated from each other.

Universitas and antiquitas, as well as consensio, belonged together. Neither was an adequate cri-

terion by itself. .Antiquity. as such was not yet a sufficient warrant of truth, unless a comprehen-

sive consensus of the .ancients. could be satisfactorily demonstrated. And consensio as such was

not conclusive, unless it could be traced back continuously to Apostolic origins. Now, suggested

St. Vincent, the true faith could be recognized by a double recourse . to Scripture and Tradition:

.In two ways . first clearly by the authority of the Holy Scriptures, then by the tradition of the

Catholic  Church..  This  did  not  imply, however, that there were two sources of Christian doc-

trine. Indeed, the rule, or canon, of Scripture was .perfect. and .self-sufficient. . .For  all

things complete and more than sufficient.. Why then should it be supplemented by any  other

.authority.? Why was it imperative to invoke also the authority of .ecclesiastical understanding.

. ecclesiasticae intelligentiae auctoritas? The reason was obvious: Scriptures were differently

interpreted  by  individuals:  .So  that  one  might  almost  gain  the  impression  that  it  can  yield  as

many different meanings, as there are men.. To this variety of .private. opinions St. Vincent op-

poses the .common. mind of the Church, the mind of the Church Catholic: .That the trend of the

interpretation of the prophets and the apostolic writings be directed in accordance with the rule of

the  ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning.. Tradition was not, according to St. Vincent, an inde-

pendent instance, nor was it a complementary source  of  faith.  .Ecclesiastical  understanding.

could not add anything to the Scripture. But it was the only means to ascertain and to disclose the

true meaning of Scripture. Tradition was, in fact, the authentic interpretation of Scripture. And in

this  sense  it was co-extensive with Scripture. Tradition was actually .Scripture rightly under-

stood..  And Scripture was for St. Vincent the only, primary and ultimate, canon of Christian

truth (Commonitorium, cap. II, cf. cap. 28).

The hermeneutical question in the Ancient Church.

  At this point St. Vincent was in full agreement with the established tradition. In the admira-

ble phrase of St. Hilary of Poitiers, .For Scripture is not in the reading, but in the understanding;.

[ad Constantium Aug., lib. II, cap. 9, ML X, 570; the phrase is repeated also by St. Jerome, Dial. c. Lucifer., cap. 28,

ML XXIII, 190-191]. The problem of right exegesis was still a burning issue in the Fourth century,

in the contest of the Church with the Arians, no less than it has been in the Second century, in the

struggle against Gnostics, Sabellians, and Montanists. All parties in the dispute used to appeal to

Scripture. Heretics, even Gnostics and Manichees, used to quote Scriptural texts and  passages

and to invoke the authority of the Holy Writ. Moreover, exegesis was at that time the main, and

probably the only, theological method, and the authority of the Scripture was sovereign and su-

preme. The Orthodox were bound to raise the crucial hermeneutical question: What was the prin-

ciple of interpretation? Now, in the Second century the term .Scriptures. denoted primarily the

Old Testament and, on the other hand, the authority of these .Scriptures. was sharply challenged,

and actually repudiated, by the teaching of Marcion. The Unity of the Bible had to be proved and

vindicated. What was the basis, and the warrant, of Christian, and Christological, understanding

of .Prophecy,. that is . of the Old Testament? It was in this historical situation that the author-

ity of Tradition was first invoked. Scripture belonged to the Church, and it  was  only  in  the

Church, within the community of right faith, that Scripture could be adequately understood and

correctly interpreted. Heretics, that is . those outside of the Church, had no key to the mind of

the Scripture. It was not enough just to read and to quote Scriptural words . the true meaning,

or intent, of Scripture, taken as an integrated whole, had to be elicited. One had to grasp, as it

were in advance, the true pattern of Biblical revelation, the great design of God.s redemptive

Providence, and this could be done only by an insight of faith. It was by faith that  Christuszeugniss

 could be discerned in the Old Testament. It was by faith that the unity  of  the

tetramorph Gospel could be properly ascertained. But this faith was not an arbitrary and subjec-

tive insight of individuals . it was the faith of the Church, rooted in the Apostolic message, or

kerygma, and authenticated by it. Those outside of the Church were missing precisely this basic

and overarching message, the very heart of the Gospel. With them Scripture was just a dead let-

ter, or an array of disconnected passages and stories, which  they  endeavored  to  arrange  or

re-arrange on their own pattern, derived from alien sources. They had another faith. This was the

main argument of Tertullian in his passionate treatise De praescriptione. He would not discuss

Scriptures with heretics . they had no right to use Scriptures, as they did not belong to them.

Scriptures were the Church.s possession. Emphatically did Tertullian insist on the priority of the

.rule of faith,. regula fidei. It was the only key to the meaning of the Scripture. And this .rule.

was  Apostolic,  was  rooted  in,  and  derived from, the Apostolic preaching. C. H. Turner has

rightly described the meaning and the intention of this appeal or reference to the .rule of faith. in

the  Early  Church. .When  Christians spoke of the .Rule of Faith. as .Apostolic,. they did not

mean that the Apostles had met and formulated it . What they meant was that the profession of

belief which every catechumen recited before his baptism did embody in summary form the faith

which  the  Apostles  had  taught  and  had  committed  to  their  disciples  to  teach after  them..  This

profession was the same everywhere, although the actual phrasing could vary from place to place.

It was always intimately related to the baptismal formula [C. H. Turner, Apostolic Succession, in .Essays

on the Early History of the Church and the Ministry,. edited by H. B. Swete (London, 1918), pp. 101-102. See also

Yves  M.  J. Cougar,  O.P.,  La Tradition et ler traditions, 11. Esrai Theologique  (Paris,  1963),  pp.  21  ss]. Apart

from this .rule. Scripture could be but misinterpreted. Scripture and Tradition were indivisibly

interwined for Tertullian.

  .For only where the true Christian teaching and faith are evident will the true Scriptures, the

true interpretations, and all the true Christian traditions be found;. [XIX. 3]. The Apostolic Tra-

dition  of  faith  was  the  indispensable guide in the understanding of Scripture and the ultimate

warrant of right interpretation. The Church was not an external authority, which had to  judge

over the Scripture, but rather the keeper and guardian of that Divine truth which was stored and

deposited in the Holy Writ [Cf. E. Flesseman-van-Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen,

1954), pp. 145-185; Damien van den Eynde, Les Normes de l’Enseignment Chretien danr la litterature patristique

des troit premiers siecler  (Gembloux-Paris,  1933),  pp.  197-212;  J.  K.  Stirniman,  Die Praescriptio Tertullians in

Lichte des romirchen Rechts and der Theologie (Freiburg, 1949); and also the introduction and notes of R. F. Re-

foule, O.P., in the edition of De praescriptione, in the .Sources Chretiennes,. 46 (Paris, 1957)].

St. Irenaeus and the “Canon of Truth.”

  Denouncing  the Gnostic mishandling of Scriptures, St. Irenaeus introduced a picturesque

simile. A skillful artist has made a beautiful image of a king, composed of many precious jewels.

Now, another man takes this mosaic image apart, re-arranges the stones in another pattern so as

to produce the image of a dog or of a fox. Then he starts claiming that this was the original pic-

ture,  by  the  first  master, under the pretext that the gems were authentic. In fact, however, the

original design had been destroyed. This is precisely what the heretics  do  with  the  Scripture.

They  disregard  and  disrupt  .the  order and connection. of the Holy Writ and .dismember the

truth.. Words, expressions, and images are genuine, indeed, but the design, the ipothesis, is arbi-

trary and false (adv. hoeres., 1. 8. 1) . St. Irenaeus suggested as well another analogy. There were

in  circulation  at  that  time certain Homerocentones, composed of genuine verses of Homer, but

taken at random and out of context, and re-arranged in arbitrary manner. All particular  verses

were truly Homeric, but the new story, fabricated by the means of re-arrangement, was not Ho-

meric at all. Yet, one could be easily deceived by the familiar sound of the  Homeric  idiom

(1.9.4). It is worth noticing that Tertullian also refers to these curious centones, made of Homeric

or Virgilian verses (de praescr., XXXIX). Apparently, it was a common device in the polemical

literature of that time. Now, the point which St. Irenaeus endeavored to make is obvious. Scrip-

ture had its own pattern or design, its internal structure and harmony. The heretics ignore this pat-

tern, or rather substitute their own instead. In other words, they re-arrange the Scriptural evidence

on a pattern which is quite alien to the Scripture itself. Now, contended St. Irenaeus, those who

had kept unbending that .canon of truth. which they had received at baptism, will have no diffi-

culty in .restoring each expression to its appropriate place.. Then they are able to behold the true

image. The actual phrase used by St.  Irenaeus  is  peculiar:  prosarmosas to tis alithias somatic

(which is clumsily rendered in the old Latin translation as corpusculum veyitatis). But the mean-

ing of the phrase is quite clear. The somatio is not necessarily a diminutive. It simply denotes a

.corporate body.. In the phrase of St. Irenaeus it denotes the corpus of truth, the right context,

the original design, the .true image,. the original disposition of gems and verses  [Cf.  F.  Katten-

busch, Das Apostolische Symbol,  Bd.  II (Leipzig,  1900),  ss.  30 ff., and also his note in the .Zeitschrift f. neutest.

Theologie,. x (1909), ss. 331-332]. Thus, for St. Irenaeus, the reading of Scripture must be guided by

the .rule. of faith . to which believers are committed (and into which they are initiated) by their

baptismal profession, and by which only the basic message, or .the truth,. of the Scripture can be

adequately assessed and identified. The favorite phrase of St. Irenaeus was .the  rule  of  truth,.

kanon tis alithias, regula veritatis. Now, this .rule. was, in fact, nothing else than the witness and

preaching of the Apostles, their kirigma and praedicatio (or praeconium), which was .deposited.

in the Church and entrusted to her by the Apostles, and then was faithfully kept  and  handed

down, with complete unanimity in all places, by the succession of accredited pastors: Those who,

together with the succession of the episcopacy, have received the firm charisma of truth [IV. 26.

2]. Whatever the direct and exact connotation of this pregnant phrase may be [It has been contended

that charisma veritatis was actually simply the Apostolic doctrine and the truth (of the Divine Revelation), so that St.

Irenaeus did not imply any special ministerial endowment of the bishops. See Karl Müller, Kleine Beiträge zur alien

Kirchengerchichte, 3. Das Charisma veritatis and der Episcopat bei Irenaeus, in .Zeitschrift f. neut. Wissenschaft,.

Bd. xxiii (1924), ss. 216-222; cf. van den Eynde, pp. 183-187; Y. M: J. Congar, O.P., La Tradition et ler traditions,

Êtude historique (Paris, 1960), pp. 97-98; Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen, Kirchliches Amt and geistliche Vollmacht

in den ersten drei jahrhudderten  (Tiibingen,  1953),  ss.  185  ff.;  and  also-with  the  special  emphasis  on  the

character of .Succession. . Einar Molland, Irenaeur of Lugdunum and the Apostolic Succession, in the .Journal of

Ecclesiastical  History,.  1.1,  1950,  pp.  12-28,  and  Le développement de 1’idée de succession apostolique,  in  the

.Revue d.historie et de philosophie réligieuses,. xxxiv.c, 1954, pp. 1-29. See, on the other hand, the critical remarks

of Arnold Ehrhardt, The Apostolic Succession in the first two centuries of the Church (London, 1953), pp. 207-231,

esp. 213-214], there can be no doubt that, in the mind of St. Irenaeus, this continuous preservation

and transmission of the deposited faith was operated and guided by the abiding presence of the

Holy Spirit in the Church. The whole conception of the Church in St. Irenaeus was at once .char-

ismatic. and .institutional.. And .Tradition. was, in his understanding, a depositum juvenescens,

a living tradition, entrusted to the Church as a new breath of life, just as breath was bestowed

upon the first man . (quemadmodum a.s piratio plasmationis III. 24. 1). Bishops or .presbyters.

were in the Church accredited guardians and ministers of this once deposited truth. .Where,

therefore, the charismata of the Lord have been deposited (posita sunt), there is it proper to learn

the truth, namely from those who have that succession of the Church which is from the Apostles

(apud quos est ea quae e.rt ab apostolis ecclesiae successio), ,ind who display a sound  and

blameless conduct and an unadulterated and incorrupt speech. For these also preserve this faith of

ours in one God who created all things, and they increase that love for the Son of God, who ac-

complished  such  marvellous  dispensation for our sake, and they expound the Scriptures to us

without danger, neither blaspheming God, nor dishonoring  the  patriarchs,  nor  despising  the

prophets. (IV. 26. 5).

The regula fidei.

  Tradition was in the Early Church, first of  all,  an  hermeneutical  principle  and  method.

Scripture could be rightly and fully assessed and understood only in the light and in the context

of the living Apostolic Tradition, which was an integral factor of Christian existence. It was so,

of course, not because Tradition could add anything to what has been manifested in the Scripture,

but because it provided that living context, the comprehensive perspective, in which only the true

.intention. and the total .design. of the Holy Writ, itself of Divine Revelation, could be detected

and grasped. The truth was, according to St. Irenaeus, a .well-grounded system,. a corpus (adv.

haeres. II. 27. 1 . veritatis corpus), a .harmonious melody” (II. 38. 3). But it was precisely this

.harmony. which could be grasped only by the insight of faith. Indeed, Tradition was not just a

transmission  of  inherited  doctrines,  in a .Judaic manner,. but rather the continuous life in the

truth [Cf. Dom Odo Casey O.S.B., Benedict von Nursia al s Pneusnatiker, in .Heilige Überlieferung. (Münster,

1938), ss. 100-101: Die heilige Überlieferung i.rt daher in der Kirche von Anfang an nicht bloss ein Weitergeben

von Doktrinen nach spätjudischen (nachchristlicher) Art geweren, sondern ein lebendiges Weiterblühen des göttlichen

Lebens. In a footnote Dom Casel sends the reader back to John Adam Mohler]. It was not a fixed core or

complex of binding propositions, but rather an insight into the meaning and impact of the revela-

tory events, of the revelation of the .God who acts.. And this was determinative in the field of

Biblical exegesis. G. L. Prestige has well put it: .The voice of the Bible could be plainly heard

only if its text were interpreted broadly and rationally, in accordance with the apostolic creed and

the evidence of the historical practice of Christendom. It was the heretics that relied on isolated

texts, and the Catholics who paid more attention on the whole to scriptural principles. [G. L. Pres-

tige, Fathers and Heretics (London, 1940), p. 43]. Summarizing her careful analysis of the use of Tradi-

tion in the Early Church, Dr. Ellen Flessemanvan-Leer has written: .Scripture without interpreta-

tion is not Scripture at all; the moment it is used and becomes alive it is always interpreted Scrip-

ture..  Now, Scripture must be interpreted .according to its own basic purport,. which is dis-

closed in the regula fidei. Thus, this regula becomes, as it were, the controlling instance in the

exegesis. .Real interpretation of Scripture is Church preaching, is tradition. [Flesseman, pp. 92-96.

On St. Irenaeus see Flesseman, 100-144; van den Eynde, 159-187; B. Reynders, Paradosis, Le progrès de l.dée tradi-

tion jusqu. à Saint Irénée, in the .Recherches de thdologie ancienne et medidvale,. v (1933), 155-191; La polemique

de Saint  Irenee, ibidem, vii  (1935),  5-27; Henri Holstein, La Tradition des Apotres chez Saint Irénée, in the .Re-

cherches de Science religieuse,. xxxvi (1949),  229-270;  La  Tradition  daps  l.Eglise  (Paris,  1960);  André  Benoit,

Ecriture  et  Tradition  chez  Saint  Irenee,  in  the  .Révue  d.histoire  et  de philosophie  réligieuses,. xL  (1960), 32-43;

Saint Irénée, Introduction a l.etude de sa théologie (Paris, 1960)].

St. Athanasius and the “Scope of Faith.”

  The situation did not change in the Fourth century. The dispute with the Arians was centered

again in the exegetical field . at least, in its early phase. The Arians and their supporters have

produced an impressive arry of Scriptural texts in the defense of their doctrinal position. They

wanted to restrict theological discussion to the Biblical ground alone. Their claims had to be met

precisely on this ground, first of all. And their exegetical method, the manner in which they han-

dled the text, was much the same as that of the earlier dissenters. They were operating with se-

lected proof-texts, without much concern for the total context of the Revelation. It was impera-

tive for the Orthodox to appeal to the mind of the Church, to that .Faith. which had been once

delivered and then faithfully kept. This was the main concern, and the usual method, of St. Atha-

nasius. The Arians quoted various passages from the Scripture to substantiate  their  contention

that the Saviour was a creature. In reply St. Athanasius invoked the .rule of faith.. This was his

usual argument. .Let us, who possess the scope of faith, restore the correct meaning of what they

had wrongly interpreted. (c. Arian. III. 35). St. Athanasius contended that the .correct. interpre-

tation of particular texts was only possible in the total perspective of faith. .What they now al-

lege from the Gospels they explain in an unsound sense, as we may discover if we take in consid-

eration the scope of the faith according to us Christians, and read the Scripture using it (ton skopon

) as the rule. (III. 28) On the other hand, close attention must be given also to the immediate

context and setting of every particular phrase and expression, and the exact intention of the writer

must be carefully identified (I. 54). Writing to Bishop Serapion, on the Holy Spirit, St. Athana-

sius contends again that Arians ignored or missed .the scope of the Divine Scripture. (ad Serap.,

II. 7; cf. ad episc. Eg., 4). The skopos was, in the language of St. Athanasius, a close equivalent

of what St. Irenaeus used to denote as ipothesis, . the underlying .idea,. the true design, the in-

tended meaning  (See  Guido  Müller,  Lexicon Athanasianum, sub voce: id quod quis docendo, scribendo,

credendo intendit). On the other hand, the word  skopos  was  a  habitual  term  in  the  exegetical

language of certain philosophical schools, especially in Neoplatonism. Exegesis played  a great

role in the philosophical endeavor of that time, and the question of hermeneutical principle had to

be raised. Jamblichos was, for one, quite formal at this point. One had to discover  the  .main

point,. or the basic theme, of the whole treatise under examination, and to  keep  it  all  time  in

mind. St. Athanasius could well be acquainted with the technical use of  the  term.  It was mis-

leading,  he  contended, to quote isolated texts and passages, disregarding the total intent of the

Holy Writ. It is obviously inaccurate to interpret the term skopos in the idiom of St. Athanasius

as .the general drift. of the Scripture. The .scope. of the faith, or of the Scripture, is precisely

their  credal core, which is condensed in the .rule of faith,. as it had been maintained in the

Church  and  .transmitted  from  fathers  to  fathers,.  while  the  Arians  had  .no  fathers.  for  their

opinions (de decr., 27). As Cardinal Newman has rightly observed, St. Athanasius regarded the

.rule of faith. as an ultimate .principle of interpretation,. opposing the .ecclesiastical sense.

(P.82,  c. Arian. I. 44) to .private opinions. of the heretics  [Select Treatises of St. Athanasius,  freely

translated by J. H. Cardinal Newman, Vol. II (Eighth impression, 1900), pp. 250-252]. Time and again, in his

scrutiny of the Arian arguments, St. Athanasius would summarize the basic tenets of the Chris-

tian faith, before going into the actual re-examination of the alleged proof-texts, in order to re-

store texts into their proper perspective. H. E. W. Turner has described this exegetical manner of

St. Athanasius:

Against the favorite Arian technique of pressing the grammatical meaning of a text without regard either to the

immediate context or to the wider frame of reference in the teaching of the Bible as a whole, he urges the need

to take the general drift of the Church.s Faith as a Canon of interpretation. The Arians are blind to the wide

sweep of Biblical theology and therefore fail to take into sufficient account the context in which their proof-

texts are set. The sense of Scripture must itself be taken as Scripture. This has been taken as a virtul abandon-

ment of the appeal to Scripture and its replacement by an argument from Tradition. Certainly in less careful

hands it might lead to the imposition of a strait-jacket upon the Bible as the dogmatism of Arian and Gnostic

had attempted to do. But this was certainly not the intention of St. Athanasius himself. For him it represents an

appeal  from  exegesis  drunk  to  exegesis  sober,  from a myopic insistence upon the grammatical letter to the

meaning of intention (skopos, haraktir) of the Bible. (H. E. W. Turner, The Pattern of Christian Truth (Lon-

don, 1954), pp. 193-1944).

It seems, however, that Professor Turner exaggerated the danger. The argument was still strictly

scriptural, and, in principle, St. Athanasius admitted the sufficiency of the Scripture, sacred and

inspired, for the defense of truth (c. Gentes, I). Only Scripture had to be interpreted in the context

of  the  living  credal  tradition,  under the guidance or control of the .rule of faith.. This .rule,.

however, was in no sense an .extraneous. authority which could be .imposed. on the Holy Writ.

It was the same .Apostolic preaching,. which was written down in the books of the New Testa-

ment, but it was, as it were, this preaching in epitome. St. Athanasius writes to Bishop Serapion:

.Let us look at that very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the very be-

ginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers preserved. Upon this the

Church is founded. (ad Serap., I. 28). The passage is highly characteristic of St. Athanasius. The

three terms in the phrase actually  coincide:  paradosis [tradition] . from Christ himself,  didaskalia

 [teaching] . by the Apostles, and pistis [faith] . of the Catholic Church. And this is

the foundation (themelion) of the Church . a sole and single foundation. Scripture itself seems

to be subsumed and included in this .Tradition,. coming, as it is, from the Lord. In the conclud-

ing chapter of his first epistle to Serapion St. Athanasius returns once more to the same point. .In

accordance with the Apostolic faith delivered to us by tradition from the Fathers, I have delivered

the  tradition,  without  inventing anything extraneous to it. What I learned, that have I inscribed

(eneharaksa), conformably with the Holy Scriptures. (c. 33). On an occasion St. Athanasius de-

noted the Scripture itself as an Apostolic paradosis (ad Adelph., 6). It is characteristic that in the

whole discussion with the Arians no single reference was made to any .traditions. . in plural.

The only term of reference was always .Tradition,. . indeed, the Tradition, the Apostolic Tra-

dition, comprising the total and integral content of the Apostolic .preaching,. and summarized in

the .rule of faith.. The unity and solidarity of this Tradition was the main and crucial point in the

whole argument.

The purpose of exegesis and the “Rule of Worship.”

  The appeal to Tradition was actually an appeal to the mind of the Church. It was assumed

that the Church had the knowledge and the understanding of the truth, of the truth and the .mean-

ing.  of  the  Revelation.  Accordingly,  the Church had both the competence and the authority to

proclaim  the  Gospel  and  to  interpret  it.  This  did  not  imply  that  the  Church  was  .above.  the

Scripture. She stood by the Scripture, but on the other hand, was not bound by its .letter.. The

ultimate  purpose  of  exegesis  and  interpretation  was  to  elicit  the meaning  and  the  intent  of  the

Holy Writ, or rather the meaning of the Revelation, of the Heilsgeschichte. The Church had to

preach  Christ, and not just .the Scripture.. The use of Tradition in the Ancient Church can be

adequately understood only in the context of the actual use of the Scripture. The Word was kept

alive in the Church. It was reflected in her life and structure. Faith and Life were organically in-

terwined. It would be proper to recall at this point the famous passage from the Indiculus de gratia

Dei,  which  was  mistakenly  attributed  to Pope Celestine and was in fact composed by St.

Prosper of Aquitania: .These are the inviolable decrees of the Holy and Apostolic See by which

our holy Fathers slew the baneful innovation . Let us regard the sacred prayers which, in accor-

dance  with  apostolic  tradition  our  priests  offer  uniformly  in  every  Catholic  Church  in  all  the

world. Let the rule of worship lay down the rule of faith.. It is true, of course, that this phrase in

its immediate context was not a formulation of a general principle, and its direct intention was

limited to one particular point: Infant Baptism as an instance pointing to the reality of an inher-

ited or original sin. Indeed, it was not an authoritative proclamation of a Pope, but a private opin-

ion of an individual theologian, expressed in the context of a heated controversy  [See  Dom  M.

Capuyns,  L’origine des Capitula Pseudo-Celesliniens contre les Senzipelagiens,  in  .Révue  Bénédictine,.  t.  41

(1929),  pp.  156-170;  especially  Karl  Federer,  Liturgie and Glaube, Eine theologiegerchichtliche Untersuchung

(Freiburg in der Schweiz, 1950. Paradosis, IV; cf. Dom. B. Capelle, Autorité de la liturgie chéz les Péres, in .Re-

cherches de Theologie ancienne et medievale,. t. XXI (1954), pp. 5-22]. Yet, it was not just an accident, and

not a misunderstanding, that the phrase had been taken out of its immediate context and slightly

changed in order to express the principle: ut legem credendi statuat lex orandi. [So that the rule

of worship should establish the rule of faith]. .Faith. found its first expression precisely in the

liturgical, sacramental, rites and formulas . and .Creeds. first emerged as an integral part of the

rite of initiation. .Credal summaries of faith, whether interrogatory or declaratory, were a

by-product of the liturgy and reflected its fixity or plasticity,. says J. N. D. Kelly [J. N. D. Kelly,

Early Christian Creeds London, 1950), p. 167]. .Liturgy,. in the wide and comprehensive sense of the

word, was the first and initial layer in the Tradition of the Church, and the argument from the lex

orandi  [Rule  of worship]  was persistently used in discussion already by the end of the Second

century. The Worship of the Church was a solemn proclamation of her Faith. The baptismal in-

vocation of the Name was probably the earliest Trinitarian formula, as the Eucharist was the pri-

mary witness to the mystery of Redemption, in all its fulness. The New Testament itself came to

existence, as a .Scripture,. in the Worshipping Church. And Scripture was read first in the con-

text of worship and meditation.

St. Basil and “Unwritten Tradition.”

  Already St. Irenaeus used to refer to .faith. as it had been received at baptism. Liturgical ar-

guments were used by Tertullian and St. Cyprian [See Federer, op. cit., s. 59 ff.; F. De Pzuw, La justification

des traditions non écrites chéz Tertullien,  in  .Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses,.  t.  XIX,  1/2,  1942,  pp.

5-46. Cf. also Georg Kretschmar, Studien zur frühchrirtlichen Trinitätrtheologie (Tübingen, 1956)]. St. Athana-

sius and the Cappadocians used the same argument. The full development of this argument from

the  liturgical  tradition  we  find  in  St.  Basil.  In  his  contest  with  the  later Arians, concerning the

Holy Spirit, St. Basil built his major argument on the analysis of doxologies, as they were used in

the Churches. The treatise of St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, was an occasional tract, written in the

fire and heat of a desperate struggle, and addressed to a particular historic situation. But St. Basil

was concerned here with the principles and methods of theological investigation. In his treatise

St. Basil  was arguing a particular point,-indeed, the crucial point in the sound Trinitarian doc-

trine, . the  homotimia  of  the Holy Ghost. His main  reference was  to  a  liturgical  witness:  the

doxology of a definite type (“with the Spirit”), which, as he could demonstrate, has been widely

used in the Churches. The phrase, of course, was not in the Scripture. It was only attested by tra-

dition.  But  his  opponents  would  not  admit  any  authority  but  that  of  the  Scripture.  It  is  in  this

situation that St. Basil endeavored to prove the legitimacy of an appeal to Tradition. He wanted

to show that the omotimia of the Spirit, that is, his Divinity, was always believed in the Church

and was a part of the Baptismal profession of faith. Indeed, as Pere Benoit Pruche has rightly ob-

served, the omotimos, was for St. Basil an equivalent of the omousios [See his introduction to the edi-

tion of the treatise De Spirilu Sancto in .Sources Chrétiennes,. (Paris, 1945), pp. 28 ss]. There was little new in

this concept of Tradition, except consistency and precision.

  His phrasing, however, was rather peculiar. .Of the dogmata and kerygmata, which are kept

in the Church, we have some from the written teaching, and some we derive from the Apostolic

paradosis, which had been handed down en mistirio. And both have the same strength in the mat-

ters of piety. (de Spir. S., 66). At first glance one may get the impression that St. Basil introduces

here a double authority and double standard . Scripture and Tradition. In fact he was very far

from doing so. His use of terms is peculiar. Kerygmata were for him what in the later idiom was

usually denoted as .dogmas. or .doctrines. . a formal and authoritative teaching and ruling in

the matters of faith,the open or public teaching. On the other hand, dogmata were for him the to-

tal  complex  of  .unwritten habits,.  or,  in  fact,  the whole  structure of liturgical and sacramental

life. It must be kept in mind that the concept, and the term itself, .dogma,. was not yet fixed by

that time, it was not yet a term with a strict and exact connotation [See the valuable study by August

Deneffe, S.J., Dogma. Wort and Begriff, in the .Scholastik,. Jg. VI (1931), ss. 381-400 and 505-538]. In any case,

one should not be embarrassed by the contention of St. Basil that  dogmata were delivered or

handed down, by the Apostles en mistirio. It would be a flagrant mistranslation if we render it as

.in secret.. The only accurate rendering is: .by the way of mysteries,. that is . under the form

of  rites  and  (liturgical)  usages,  or  .habits..  In  fact,  it  is  precisely  what  St.  Basil  says  himself:

Most of the mysteries are communicated to us by an unwritten way. The term ta mistika refers

here, obviously, to the rites of Baptism and Eucharist, which  are,  for  St. Basil,  of  .Apostolic.

origin. He quotes at this point St. Paul.s own reference to .traditions,. which the faithful have re-

ceived (2 Thess. 2:15; I Cor. 11:2). The doxology in question is one of these .traditions. (71; cf.

also 66) . The Apostles and Fathers who from the very beginning arranged everything in the

churches, preserved the sacred character of the mysteries in silence and secrecy. Indeed, all in-

stances quoted by St. Basil in this connection are of ritual or liturgical nature: the use of the sign

of the Cross in the rite of admission of Catechumens; the orientation toward East at prayer; the

habit to keep standing at worship on Sundays; the epiclesis in the Eucharistic rite; the blessing of

water and oil, the renunciation of Satan and his pomp, the triple immersion, in the rite of Bap-

tism. There are many  other .unwritten mysteries of the Church,. says St. Basil (c. 66 and 67).

They are not mentioned in the Scripture. But they are of great authority and significance. They

are indispensable for the preservation of right faith. They are effective means of witness  and

communication. According to St. Basil, they come from a .silent. and .private. tradition: From

the  silent  and  mystical  tradition,  from  the unpublic and ineffable teaching. This .silent. and

.mystical. tradition, .which has not been made public,. is not an esoteric doctrine, reserved for

some particular elite. The .elite. was the Church. In fact, .tradition. to which St. Basil appeals,

is the liturgical practice of the Church. St. Basil is referring here to what is now denoted as disciplina

arcani [The discipline of secrecy]. In the fourth century this .discipline. was in wide use,

was formally imposed and advocated in the Church. It was related to the institution of the Cate-

chumenate and had primarily an educational and didactic purpose. On the other hand, as St. Basil

says himself, certain .traditions. had to be kept .unwritten. in order to prevent profanation at the

hands of the infidel. This remark obviously refers to rites and usages. It may be recalled at this

point that, in the practice of the Fourth century, the Creed (and also the Dominical Prayer) were a

part of this .discipline of secrecy. and could not be disclosed to the non-initiated. The Creed was

reserved for the candidates for Baptism, at the last stage of their instruction, after they had been

solemnly enrolled and approved. The Creed was communicated, or .traditioned,. to them by the

bishop orally and they had to recite it by memory before him: the ceremony of traditio and redditio

symboli.  [Transmission  and  Repetition  (by  the  initiated)  of  the  Creed].  The  Catechumens

were strongly urged not to divulge the Creed to outsiders and not to commit it to writing. It had

to be inscribed in their hearts. It is enough to quote there the Procatechesis of St. Cyril of Jerusa-

lem, cap 12 and 17. In the West Rufinus and St. Augustine felt that it was improper to set the

Creed down on paper. For that reason Sozomen in his History does not quote the text of the Ni-

cene Creed, .which only the initiated and the mystagogues have the right to recite and hear. (hist.

eccl. 1.20) . It is against this background, and in this historic context, that the argument of St.

Basil must be assessed and interpreted. St. Basil stresses strongly the importance of the Baptis-

mal profession of faith, which included a formal commitment to the belief in the Holy Trinity,

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (67 and 26). It was a .tradition. which had been handed down to the

neophytes .in mystery. and had to be kept .in silence.. One would be in great danger to shake

.the very foundation of the Christian faith. if this .unwritten tradition. was set aside, ignored, or

neglected (c. 25). The only difference between dogma and kirigma was  in  the manner  of  their

transmission: dogma is kept .in silence. and kerygmata are .publicized.. But their intent is iden-

tical: they convey the same faith, if in different manners. Moreover, this particular habit was not

just a tradition of the Fathers . such a tradition would not have sufficed: uk eksarki. In fact, .the

Fathers. derived their .principles. from .the intention of the Scripture. following the intention

of the Scripture, deriving their principles from the scriptural witnesses. Thus, the .unwritten tra-

dition,. in rites and symbols, does not actually add anything to the content of the Scriptural faith:

it only puts this faith in focus [Cf. Hermann  Dörries, De Spiritu Sancto, Der Beitrag des Basilius zum Abschluss

des trinitarischen Dogmas (Göttingen, 1956); J. A. Jungmann, S.J., Die Stellung Christi im liturgischen Gebet

, 2. Auflage (Münster i/W, 1962), ss. 155 ff., 163 ff.; Dom David Amand, L’arcese monastique de Saint Basile,

Editions de Maredsous (1949), pp. 75-85. The footnotes in the critical editions of the treatise De Spiritu S. by C. F.

H.  Johnson (Oxford,  1892) and by Benoit  Pruche, O.P.  (in  the  .Sources Chéktiennes,.  Paris,  1945)  are  highly  in-

structive and helpful. On disciplina arcani see O. Perler, s.v. Arkandisciplin, in .Reallexikon für Antike and Chris-

tentum,. Bd. I (Stuttgart, 1950), ss. 671-676,. Joachim Jeremias, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (Göttingen, 1949), ss.

59 ff., 78 ff., contended that disciplina arcani could be detected already in the formation of the text of the Gospels,

and actually existed also in Judaism; cf. the sharp criticism of this thesis by R. P. C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early

Church (London, 1962), pp. 27 ss].

  St. Basil.s appeal to .unwritten tradition. was actually an appeal to the faith of the Church,

to her sensus catholicus, to the fronima ekklisiatikon [Ecclesiastical mind]. He had to break the

deadlock created by the obstinate and narrow-minded pseudo-biblicism of his Arian opponents.

And he pleaded that, apart from this .unwritten. rule of faith, it was impossible to grasp the true

intention  and  teaching  of  the Scripture itself. St. Basil was strictly scriptural in his theology:

Scripture was for him the supreme criterion of doctrine (epist. 189.3). His exegesis was sober and

reserved. Yet, Scripture itself was a mystery, a mystery of Divine .economy. and of human sal-

vation. There was an inscrutable depth in the Scripture, since it was an .inspired. book, a book

by  the  Spirit.  For  that  reason  the  true  exegesis must be also spiritual and prophetic. A gift of

spiritual discernment was necessary for the right understanding of the Holy Word. .For the judge

of the words ought to start with the same preparation as the author . And I see that in the utter-

ances of the Spirit it is also impossible for everyone to undertake the scrutiny of His word, but

only  for  them  who  have  the  Spirit  which  grants  the  discernment.  (epist.  204).  The  Spirit  is

granted in the sacraments of the Church. Scripture must be read in the light of faith, and also in

the community of the faithful. For that reason Tradition, the tradition of faith as handed down

through generations, was for St. Basil an indispensable guide and companion in the study and in-

terpretation of the Holy Writ. At this point he was following in the steps of St. Irenaeus and St.

Athanasius. In the similar way Tradition, and especially the liturgical witness, of the Church was

used by St. Augustine [Cf. German Mártin, O.D., La tradicin en San Agustín a través de la controversia pelagiana

 (Madrid,  1942)  (originally  in  .Revista  española de Teología,. Vol. I, 1940, and II, 1942); Wunibald Roetzer,

Des heiligen Augustinus Schriften als liturgie-gerchichtliche Quelle (Miinchen, 1930); see also the studies of Fed-

erer and Dom Capelle, as quoted above].

The Church as interpreter of Scripture.

  The Church had the authority to interpret the Scripture, since she was the only authentic de-

pository of Apostolic  kerygma.  This  kerygma was  unfailingly  kept  alive  in  the  Church,  as  she

was endowed with the Spirit. The Church was still teaching viva voce, commending and further-

ing the Word of God. And viva vox Evangelii [the living voice of the Gospel] was indeed not just

a recitation of the words of the Scripture. It was a proclamation of the Word of God, as it was

heard and preserved in the Church, by the ever abiding power of the quickening Spirit.  Apart

from the Church and her regular Ministry, .in succession. to the  Apostles,  there  was  no  true

proclamation of the Gospel, no sound preaching, no real understanding of the Word of God. And

therefore it would be in vain to look for truth elsewhere, outside of the Church, Catholic and Ap-

ostolic. This was the common assumption of the Ancient Church, from  St.  Irenaeus  down  to

Chalcedon, and further. St. Irenaeus was quite formal at this point. In the Church the fullness of

truth has been gathered by the Apostles: plenissime in eam contulerint omnia quae sunt veritatis

[lodged in her hands most copiously are all things pertaining to truth (adv. hoeres., III.4.1)]. In-

deed,  Scripture  itself was the major part of this Apostolic .deposite.. So was also the Church.

Scripture and Church could not be separated, or opposed to each other. Scripture, that is . its

true understanding, was only in the Church, as she was guided by the Spirit. Origen was stressing

this unity between Scripture and Church persistently. The task of the interpreter was to disclose

the word of the Spirit: hoc observare debemus ut non nostras, cum docemus, led Sancti Spiritus

sentential proferamus [we must be careful when we teach to present not our own interpretation

but that of the Holy Spirit (in Rom. 1.3.1)]. And this is simply impossible apart from the Apos-

tolic Tradition, kept in the Church. Origen insisted on catholic interpretation of Scripture, as it is

offered in the Church: audiens in Ecclesia verhum Dei catholice tractari [hearing in the Church

the Word of God presented in the catholic manner (in Lev. hom., 4.5)]. Heretics, in their exege-

sis, ignore precisely the true .intention. or the  voluntas of the Scripture: qui enim neque juxta

voluntatem Scripturarum neque juxta fidei veritatem pro f ert eloquia Dei, seminat triticum et

metit spinas [those who present the words of God, not in conjunction with the intention of the

Scriptures, nor in conjunction .with the truth of faith, have sown wheat and reaped  thorns  (in

ferem. hom., 7.3)]. The .intention. of the Holy Writ and the .Rule of faith. are intimately cor-

related and correspond to each other. This was the position of the Fathers in the Fourth century

and later, in full agreement with the teaching of the Ancients. With his usual sharpness and ve-

hemence of expression, St. Jerome, this great man of Scripture, has voiced the same view:

Marcion and Basilides and other heretics . do not possess the Gospel of God, since they have no Holy Spirit,

without which the Gospel so preached becomes human. We do not think that Gospel consists of the words of

Scripture but in its meaning; not on the surface but in the marrow, not in the leaves of sermons but in the root

of meaning. In this case Scripture is really useful for the hearers when it is not spoken without Christ, nor is

presented without the Fathers, and those who are preaching do not introduce it without the Spirit . It is a great

danger  to  speak  in  the Church,  lest  by  a  perverse  interpretation  of  the Gospel of Christ,  a gospel of man  is

made (in Galat., I, 1. II; M. L. XXVI, c. 386).

There is the same preoccupation with the true understanding of the Word of God as in the days of

St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. St. Jerome probably was simply paraphrasing Origen. Out-

side of the Church there is no .Divine Gospel,. but only human substitutes. The true meaning of

Scripture, the sensus Scripturae, that is, the Divine message, can be detected only juxta fidei veritatem

 [in conjunction with the truth of faith], under the guidance of the rule of faith. The veritas

fidei [the truth of faith] is, in this context, the Trinitarian confession of faith. It is the same ap-

proach as  in  St. Basil. Again,  St. Jerome is speaking here primarily of the proclamation of the

Word in the Church: andientibus utilis est [to those who hear the Word].

St. Augustine and Catholic Authority.

  In the same sense we have to interpret the well known, and justly startling, statement of St.

Augustine:  Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas

 [Indeed, I should not have believed the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church had

not moved me (c. epistolam Fundamenti, v.6) ]. The phrase must be read in its context. First of

all, St. Augustine did not utter this sentence on his own behalf. He spoke of the attitude which a

simple believer had to take, when confronted with the heretical claim for authority. In this situa-

tion it was proper for a simple believer to appeal to the authority of the Church, from which, and

in which, he had received the Gospel itself: ipsi Evangelio catholicis praedicantibus credidi. [I

believed the Gospel itself, being instructed by catholic preachers]. The Gospel and the preaching

of the Catholica belong together. St. Augustine had no intention .to subordinate. the Gospel to

the Church. He only wanted to emphasize that .Gospel. is actually received always in the con-

text of Church.s catholic preaching and simply cannot be separated from the Church. Only in this

context it can be assessed and properly understood. Indeed, the witness of the Scripture is ulti-

mately .self-evident,. but only for the .faithful,. for those who have achieved a certain .spiri-

tual. maturity, . and this is only possible within the Church. He opposed this teaching and

preaching auctoritas of the Church Catholic to the pretentious vagaries of Manichean exegesis.

The Gospel did not belong to the Manicheans. Catholicae Ecclesiae auctoritas [the authority of

the Catholic Church] was not an independent source of faith. But it was the indispensable princi-

ple of sound interpretation. Actually, the sentence could be converted: one should not believe the

Church, unless one was moved by the Gospel. The relationship is strictly reciprocal [Cf. Louis de

Montadon, Bible et Eglise danr l’Apologélique de Saint Augustin, in the .Recherches de Science réligieuse,. t. II

(1911),  pp.  233-238; Pierre  Battiffol, Le Catholicisme de Saint Augustin,  5th  ed. (Paris, 1929), pp. 25-27 (see the

whole chapter I, L.Eglise régle de foi); and especially A. D. R. Polman, The Word of God according to St. Augustine

(Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1961), pp. 198-208 (it is a revised translation of the book published in Dutch in 1955 - De

Theologie van Augustinus, Het Woord Gods bij Augurtinus); see also W. F. Dankbaar, Schriftgezag en Kerkgezag

bij Augustinus, in the Wederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift,. XI (1956-1957), ss. 37-59 (the article is written in con-

nection with the Dutch edition of Polman.s book)].