I have discussed the doctrine of Scripture only two times so far on this blog: later last year in my essay “The Resurrection of Christ and the Authority of Scripture” and much earlier in one of my first articles, “Sola Apostolorum.” The former focused more on the matter of authority in the abstract, primarily addressing the heretical position of biblical minimalism.
That was a great article! Yet I ask for your help in understanding the overall point better. I understand you thusly:
If Tradition were truly infallible, both groups (Catholic, Orthodox) would agree on it. ["it" being which Tradition] Since they don’t, it suggests that either:
a) Tradition is not actually infallible, or
b) The disagreements are a sign that infallibility in Tradition cannot be *demonstrated*.
-> I would say demonstrated easily.
This problem forces the debate back to Scripture, as it is universally accepted as infallible across all orthodox Christian traditions. Thus, when Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant apologists debate issues like the papacy, they inevitably appeal to Scripture to support their positions.
-> Is your point that one must *practically* agree with Sola Scriptura, even if one does not do so in a matter of epistemology or ontology/metaphysics?
Secondly. Even though I do think that Scriptural infallibility is a useful basis for orthodox Christians to argue from, it is not the only one they use. The use of reason is always implied with that. Deductions purely from reason, and from nature [in conjunction with reason,] are also coherent on that framework. Which means philosophical argument - the very least those of applied logics and mathematics - and those from natural science can be used as well; either to put away with some anti-scientific interpretations of the Bible or to argue for a philosophical ground of interpretation to begin with.
Without the addition of "rationalism," by which I mean the usage of reason to discover truths at all and the belief in a teleological world in which everything has a reason or cause, the vector of Scriptural infallibility is not well regulated. Using the Bible alone, one may come to the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox one, but many dogmas must simply be introduced by Church authority and, if that authority was not argued for well enough, serve at most as a theory if using the Bible alone. This may lead to a minimalism where one does not calculate the different positions, but reduces the faith to a basic set of agreed-upon principles, disregarding theological complexity and any depth. Doctrinal development through reason and the guidance of the Church become an impossibility from the outset because one cut off the Bible from "natural truths."
When it comes to praxis, I would argue for a Rationalistic Sola Scriptura from which Church authority can be deduced logically or mathematically in relation to philosophy and theology, or from the Bible in relation to philosophy or theology.
“Is your point that one must *practically* agree with Sola Scriptura, even if one does not do so in a matter of epistemology or ontology/metaphysics?”
Yes, precisely, you understood me well there.
For your second part, I’m afraid I’ll have to flip the script and ask for a clarification. It seems to me that what you’re arguing is for a tripartite model of dogmatic authority, rather than divine law issuing from Scripture and Tradition you’re saying it’s from (what we may term) Special, General/Natural, and “Historic” Revelation? I feel I didn’t fully track along with you so I’ll leave it at that and not ensnare myself with any misinterpretations.
Premise 1: Scriptural infallibility is a useful and legitimate basis for orthodox Christians to argue from.
Premise 2: However, Scripture alone is insufficient [and not implied with Sola Scirptura!] to fully interpret or develop dogmas, as it requires the use of reason to regulate its interpretations.
Premise 3: Rationalism (the use of reason to discover truths, and the belief in a teleological world where everything has a cause or reason) is necessary to avoid minimalism in theology. Without it, one reduces the faith to a set of basic principles a priori, disregarding the possibility of theological depth and complexity.
Premise 4: Church authority and doctrinal developments need rational justification, either through logical or philosophical deduction from the Bible or from reason and natural truths (i.e., philosophical arguments, applied logic, and natural science.)
Conclusion: A model of "Rationalistic Sola Scriptura" should be followed in praxis, where Scriptural infallibility is supplemented by reason and philosophy, allowing for the logical deduction of Church authority and doctrinal development.
Also:
Premise 1: Scriptural infallibility is a legitimate basis for orthodox Christian doctrine, as Scripture contains divine truth.
Premise 2: However, the interpretation of Scripture requires rational regulation to avoid incorrect, reductive, or *overly* simplistic theological conclusions.
Premise 3: Rationalism (the use of reason to discover truths and the belief in a teleological world where everything has a cause or reason) is necessarily implied in Sola Scriptura because:
-> The act of interpreting Scripture inherently involves logical processes (e.g., deducing meaning, resolving contradictions, analyzing context.)
-> Scripture itself assumes the use of reason, as seen in biblical exhortations for discernment, wisdom, and understanding (e.g., Proverbs 4:7, 1 Thessalonians 5:21.)
-> Without rationalism, theological minimalism arises a priori, reducing faith to a basic set of principles devoid of depth, disregarding natural and philosophical truths, and cutting off doctrinal development without necessary justification for the premises causing that.
I appreciate the way you’ve laid out this discussion so clearly. I wanted to give some brief thoughts and then share some extensive quotes from St. Dumitru Staniloae’s The Experience of God, Volume 1, from a chapter entitled “Scripture and Tradition” because I think they communicate the relationship between Scripture and Tradition better than I could. I have come to see Scripture and Tradition as inseparably interrelated, in that they are both necessary in a broader process of “living dialogue” between God and the Church, within which salvation is worked out. The use of the term ‘Scripture’ implies an understanding of the meaning of its contents which, I think we can both agree, is hotly contested among the many groups who self-identify as Christian. This is a commonly stated point, but it is brought up so often for good reason: what use is the infallibility of Scripture if we have no infallible means of interpretation? If I know that the Bible is infallible, but I don’t know in any given situation that I am understanding or applying it properly, then where does that leave me? For an improper understanding or use of an infallible text renders its infallibility moot. Thus, the infallibility of both Scripture and Tradition (being Scripture’s living and infallible interpretative framework and mechanism of application to the lives of humans) needs to rest squarely on the authority of the Holy Spirit, if we are to overcome this problem. You might respond that this problem still exists and ask the following question: how can we infallibly identify which “Tradition” is in fact correct? To which I would respond: Tradition must find its roots in the actual life of Christ, who chose, taught, and sent the Apostles, who themselves handed down that teaching through their successors the bishops, so on and so forth. You could still perhaps argue that the historical trajectory of this Tradition through time has been muddied, confused, corrupted, etc. such that a form of pure Tradition has not been passed down without interruption (which, to be clear, I would disagree with), but I can understand this perspective, given the messiness of history. You can point out that Roman Catholics and Orthodox disagree about which Church has the genuine and unbroken Tradition, but their disagreement does not bear upon the facticity of the genuine transmission of Tradition (I.e., either the Orthodox are correct, the Catholics are correct, or the Protestants are correct, or I suppose they could technically all be incorrect). But I think that regardless of the details of this debate, Tradition is in principle necessary for the actual practical use of Scripture as an infallible authority. To be sure, Tradition must be assimilated subjectively by each generation and even each person (in the context of a Church) because it is engaged in and transmitted as a dialogue between persons (man in communion with each other and God). At any rate, enough of my soapboxing! Check out the following excerpts from St. Dumitru’s Experience of God, Volume 1 (in a separate comment as a reply to this one), which might at least give you a better understanding of one of the perspectives on the matter (as it did me):
The living dialogue of the Church with Christ is conducted principally through Scripture and tradition. Sacred Scripture is one of the forms in which revelation keeps on being effective as God’s continuous appeal. It is the written expression of the revelation fulfilled in Christ. It presents Christ in the form of his dynamic word and of the equally dynamic word of the holy Apostles concerning his saving works in their permanent effectiveness. But it also describes both the way God has prepared our salvation in Christ and the way Christ continues to be at work until the end of the world, extending his power so that we may grow in his likeness. Through the word of Scripture, Christ continues to speak to us also to provoke us to make a response in our deeds, and thus to be actively at work within us too. Through the word of Scripture, we sense that Christ continues to be at work in us through his Holy Spirit: “I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Mt 28.20). Sacred Scripture is the Son and Word of God who translated himself into words in his work of drawing close to men so that he might raise them up to himself, until the time of his incarnation, resurrection, and ascension as man. Through these words by which he is translated, Christ works upon us to bring us also to that state which he has reached. Scripture conveys what the Son of God in his condition as God and as perfect man continues to do with us and, therefore, Scripture interprets the work Christ is doing in the present. For Christ, who remains always alive and the same (Heb 13.8), interprets himself through the same words, but as the one who wants to make us also like himself.”
Excerpt 2:
Tradition gives a permanent reality to the dialogue of the Church with Christ. The content of Scripture, received through the faith handed down from the Apostles in the community of the Church, is not a human product but something inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so it must be preserved on the one hand while, on the other band, those unchanged meanings received from the Apostles must be deepened. Hence, Scripture requires a tradition which is unchanged from the Apostles. It represents another form of preserving and making use in its continuous effectiveness of that integral revelation fulfilled in Christ. Scripture has an intrinsic dynamism. Its content seeks to be made known, applied, and lived in an ever greater depth and intensity, for the very content of revelation — Christ, the incomprehensible one —seeks to be known and appropriated more and more deeply, and to be loved more and more intensely. Tradition keeps this dynamism of the Scripture contemporary without changing it, for tradition represents an application and a continuous deepening of the content of Scripture. At the same time as it preserves the authentic dynamism of Scripture, tradition, in its quality as true interpreter of Scripture, brings that dynamism to bear upon real life. This approach to Scripture and tradition is, in essence, the apostolic approach. For the understanding of his epistles. Saint Paul refers to his oral preaching which obviously remained in the community as tradition and through tradition (1 Cor 11.2, 15.3; 2 Thess 2.15, 3.6). This “apostolic teaching” or explanation of the faith must remain as a permanent model, as a rule not to be changed (Rom 6.17; Jude 3). From the beginning, the Church persevered in and was urged to persevere in “the apostolic teaching”; this reported the words and deeds of Christ, but it also constituted an explanation of them held in common and this, by its very nature, did not come about apart from the Spirit of Christ (Acts 2.42, 17.19; Rom 16.17; Acts 13.12; Tit 1.9; Heb 13.9; Rev 2.14). But, in its exposition, this teaching or explanation had a variety of forms (1 Cor 14.26; 1 Tim 4.2).
So the apostolic explanation, even though in essence it remains the same, has within it a dynamic principle, The essence is Christ as God-man, as humanity fulfilled in himself through resurrection and the culminating union with God. But the divine infinity which is communicated to humanity through Christ always requires explanation, because of the progress in the experience and in the understanding of it: “that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have power to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph 3.17-19).
Excerpt 3:
If Scripture had only a limited, literal, static meaning, it would have no need of tradition, of an explanation that would keep its original apostolic meanings unchanged. It would be absurd, moreover, to admit any application of Scripture to lived experience. If Scripture had no intention of making Christ pass into lives of human beings and to regulate their lives after the pattern of him, it would have
no need of completion through tradition.
The apostolic explanation of the content of Scripture, the first and fully authentic explanation of it, coincides in its very nature with the application of the content of Scripture and the passing over of this content into the lives of human beings through the founding of the Church. This foundation was accompanied by concrete specifications for her modes of spiritual life and worship as well as for her hierarchical-sacramental structures based on the Lord’s own indications, structures which correspond to the many appearances of the powers of Christ bestowed to meet the different needs of the faithful. In essence, the content of the apostolic tradition is nothing more than the content of Scripture applied to human life, or made to pass over into the reality of human life through the Church. Hence the Church preserves Scripture, applied through tradition as something which is always new and yet always the same. She preserves it through the hierarchical sacramental structures specified by the Apostles as means whereby the content of revelation, or of Christ himself, passes over into the lives of men. She preserves it as something always new and always the same through the original tradition whereby the Apostles specified these structures, and whereby Christ truly communicates himself from one generation to the next, together with the inexhaustible richness of his bounties. The use of these structures of tradition means that through them, Christ, or the grace of Christ, is integrally received in the Church. This does not mean, however, that the integral Christ needs no further explanation or that further dimensions of his significance and other effects produced by him in the souls of men cannot be brought to light. Tradition, as an explanation of the same Christ, as explanation that is always growing in richness, can be separated neither from the reception of him as the unchanged content of tradition, nor from the outflow of this same grace of his, nor again from the reception of his identical person within the Church through the sacraments and the world that explains him.
Therefore, tradition has two meanings: a) the totality of the various ways by which Christ passes over into the reality of human lives under the form of the Church and all his works of sanctification and preaching; b) the transmission of these ways from generation to generation. Georges Florovsky says that the Apostles gave and, through their successors, the bishops, the Church received not a teaching only, but also the grace of the Holy Spirit. “Ultimately, ‘tradition’ is the continuity of the divine assistance, the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit.”
That was a great article! Yet I ask for your help in understanding the overall point better. I understand you thusly:
If Tradition were truly infallible, both groups (Catholic, Orthodox) would agree on it. ["it" being which Tradition] Since they don’t, it suggests that either:
a) Tradition is not actually infallible, or
b) The disagreements are a sign that infallibility in Tradition cannot be *demonstrated*.
-> I would say demonstrated easily.
This problem forces the debate back to Scripture, as it is universally accepted as infallible across all orthodox Christian traditions. Thus, when Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant apologists debate issues like the papacy, they inevitably appeal to Scripture to support their positions.
-> Is your point that one must *practically* agree with Sola Scriptura, even if one does not do so in a matter of epistemology or ontology/metaphysics?
Secondly. Even though I do think that Scriptural infallibility is a useful basis for orthodox Christians to argue from, it is not the only one they use. The use of reason is always implied with that. Deductions purely from reason, and from nature [in conjunction with reason,] are also coherent on that framework. Which means philosophical argument - the very least those of applied logics and mathematics - and those from natural science can be used as well; either to put away with some anti-scientific interpretations of the Bible or to argue for a philosophical ground of interpretation to begin with.
Without the addition of "rationalism," by which I mean the usage of reason to discover truths at all and the belief in a teleological world in which everything has a reason or cause, the vector of Scriptural infallibility is not well regulated. Using the Bible alone, one may come to the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox one, but many dogmas must simply be introduced by Church authority and, if that authority was not argued for well enough, serve at most as a theory if using the Bible alone. This may lead to a minimalism where one does not calculate the different positions, but reduces the faith to a basic set of agreed-upon principles, disregarding theological complexity and any depth. Doctrinal development through reason and the guidance of the Church become an impossibility from the outset because one cut off the Bible from "natural truths."
When it comes to praxis, I would argue for a Rationalistic Sola Scriptura from which Church authority can be deduced logically or mathematically in relation to philosophy and theology, or from the Bible in relation to philosophy or theology.
“Is your point that one must *practically* agree with Sola Scriptura, even if one does not do so in a matter of epistemology or ontology/metaphysics?”
Yes, precisely, you understood me well there.
For your second part, I’m afraid I’ll have to flip the script and ask for a clarification. It seems to me that what you’re arguing is for a tripartite model of dogmatic authority, rather than divine law issuing from Scripture and Tradition you’re saying it’s from (what we may term) Special, General/Natural, and “Historic” Revelation? I feel I didn’t fully track along with you so I’ll leave it at that and not ensnare myself with any misinterpretations.
I might re-formulate it that way:
Premise 1: Scriptural infallibility is a useful and legitimate basis for orthodox Christians to argue from.
Premise 2: However, Scripture alone is insufficient [and not implied with Sola Scirptura!] to fully interpret or develop dogmas, as it requires the use of reason to regulate its interpretations.
Premise 3: Rationalism (the use of reason to discover truths, and the belief in a teleological world where everything has a cause or reason) is necessary to avoid minimalism in theology. Without it, one reduces the faith to a set of basic principles a priori, disregarding the possibility of theological depth and complexity.
Premise 4: Church authority and doctrinal developments need rational justification, either through logical or philosophical deduction from the Bible or from reason and natural truths (i.e., philosophical arguments, applied logic, and natural science.)
Conclusion: A model of "Rationalistic Sola Scriptura" should be followed in praxis, where Scriptural infallibility is supplemented by reason and philosophy, allowing for the logical deduction of Church authority and doctrinal development.
Also:
Premise 1: Scriptural infallibility is a legitimate basis for orthodox Christian doctrine, as Scripture contains divine truth.
Premise 2: However, the interpretation of Scripture requires rational regulation to avoid incorrect, reductive, or *overly* simplistic theological conclusions.
Premise 3: Rationalism (the use of reason to discover truths and the belief in a teleological world where everything has a cause or reason) is necessarily implied in Sola Scriptura because:
-> The act of interpreting Scripture inherently involves logical processes (e.g., deducing meaning, resolving contradictions, analyzing context.)
-> Scripture itself assumes the use of reason, as seen in biblical exhortations for discernment, wisdom, and understanding (e.g., Proverbs 4:7, 1 Thessalonians 5:21.)
-> Without rationalism, theological minimalism arises a priori, reducing faith to a basic set of principles devoid of depth, disregarding natural and philosophical truths, and cutting off doctrinal development without necessary justification for the premises causing that.
I appreciate the way you’ve laid out this discussion so clearly. I wanted to give some brief thoughts and then share some extensive quotes from St. Dumitru Staniloae’s The Experience of God, Volume 1, from a chapter entitled “Scripture and Tradition” because I think they communicate the relationship between Scripture and Tradition better than I could. I have come to see Scripture and Tradition as inseparably interrelated, in that they are both necessary in a broader process of “living dialogue” between God and the Church, within which salvation is worked out. The use of the term ‘Scripture’ implies an understanding of the meaning of its contents which, I think we can both agree, is hotly contested among the many groups who self-identify as Christian. This is a commonly stated point, but it is brought up so often for good reason: what use is the infallibility of Scripture if we have no infallible means of interpretation? If I know that the Bible is infallible, but I don’t know in any given situation that I am understanding or applying it properly, then where does that leave me? For an improper understanding or use of an infallible text renders its infallibility moot. Thus, the infallibility of both Scripture and Tradition (being Scripture’s living and infallible interpretative framework and mechanism of application to the lives of humans) needs to rest squarely on the authority of the Holy Spirit, if we are to overcome this problem. You might respond that this problem still exists and ask the following question: how can we infallibly identify which “Tradition” is in fact correct? To which I would respond: Tradition must find its roots in the actual life of Christ, who chose, taught, and sent the Apostles, who themselves handed down that teaching through their successors the bishops, so on and so forth. You could still perhaps argue that the historical trajectory of this Tradition through time has been muddied, confused, corrupted, etc. such that a form of pure Tradition has not been passed down without interruption (which, to be clear, I would disagree with), but I can understand this perspective, given the messiness of history. You can point out that Roman Catholics and Orthodox disagree about which Church has the genuine and unbroken Tradition, but their disagreement does not bear upon the facticity of the genuine transmission of Tradition (I.e., either the Orthodox are correct, the Catholics are correct, or the Protestants are correct, or I suppose they could technically all be incorrect). But I think that regardless of the details of this debate, Tradition is in principle necessary for the actual practical use of Scripture as an infallible authority. To be sure, Tradition must be assimilated subjectively by each generation and even each person (in the context of a Church) because it is engaged in and transmitted as a dialogue between persons (man in communion with each other and God). At any rate, enough of my soapboxing! Check out the following excerpts from St. Dumitru’s Experience of God, Volume 1 (in a separate comment as a reply to this one), which might at least give you a better understanding of one of the perspectives on the matter (as it did me):
Excerpt 1:
The living dialogue of the Church with Christ is conducted principally through Scripture and tradition. Sacred Scripture is one of the forms in which revelation keeps on being effective as God’s continuous appeal. It is the written expression of the revelation fulfilled in Christ. It presents Christ in the form of his dynamic word and of the equally dynamic word of the holy Apostles concerning his saving works in their permanent effectiveness. But it also describes both the way God has prepared our salvation in Christ and the way Christ continues to be at work until the end of the world, extending his power so that we may grow in his likeness. Through the word of Scripture, Christ continues to speak to us also to provoke us to make a response in our deeds, and thus to be actively at work within us too. Through the word of Scripture, we sense that Christ continues to be at work in us through his Holy Spirit: “I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Mt 28.20). Sacred Scripture is the Son and Word of God who translated himself into words in his work of drawing close to men so that he might raise them up to himself, until the time of his incarnation, resurrection, and ascension as man. Through these words by which he is translated, Christ works upon us to bring us also to that state which he has reached. Scripture conveys what the Son of God in his condition as God and as perfect man continues to do with us and, therefore, Scripture interprets the work Christ is doing in the present. For Christ, who remains always alive and the same (Heb 13.8), interprets himself through the same words, but as the one who wants to make us also like himself.”
Excerpt 2:
Tradition gives a permanent reality to the dialogue of the Church with Christ. The content of Scripture, received through the faith handed down from the Apostles in the community of the Church, is not a human product but something inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so it must be preserved on the one hand while, on the other band, those unchanged meanings received from the Apostles must be deepened. Hence, Scripture requires a tradition which is unchanged from the Apostles. It represents another form of preserving and making use in its continuous effectiveness of that integral revelation fulfilled in Christ. Scripture has an intrinsic dynamism. Its content seeks to be made known, applied, and lived in an ever greater depth and intensity, for the very content of revelation — Christ, the incomprehensible one —seeks to be known and appropriated more and more deeply, and to be loved more and more intensely. Tradition keeps this dynamism of the Scripture contemporary without changing it, for tradition represents an application and a continuous deepening of the content of Scripture. At the same time as it preserves the authentic dynamism of Scripture, tradition, in its quality as true interpreter of Scripture, brings that dynamism to bear upon real life. This approach to Scripture and tradition is, in essence, the apostolic approach. For the understanding of his epistles. Saint Paul refers to his oral preaching which obviously remained in the community as tradition and through tradition (1 Cor 11.2, 15.3; 2 Thess 2.15, 3.6). This “apostolic teaching” or explanation of the faith must remain as a permanent model, as a rule not to be changed (Rom 6.17; Jude 3). From the beginning, the Church persevered in and was urged to persevere in “the apostolic teaching”; this reported the words and deeds of Christ, but it also constituted an explanation of them held in common and this, by its very nature, did not come about apart from the Spirit of Christ (Acts 2.42, 17.19; Rom 16.17; Acts 13.12; Tit 1.9; Heb 13.9; Rev 2.14). But, in its exposition, this teaching or explanation had a variety of forms (1 Cor 14.26; 1 Tim 4.2).
So the apostolic explanation, even though in essence it remains the same, has within it a dynamic principle, The essence is Christ as God-man, as humanity fulfilled in himself through resurrection and the culminating union with God. But the divine infinity which is communicated to humanity through Christ always requires explanation, because of the progress in the experience and in the understanding of it: “that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have power to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph 3.17-19).
Excerpt 3:
If Scripture had only a limited, literal, static meaning, it would have no need of tradition, of an explanation that would keep its original apostolic meanings unchanged. It would be absurd, moreover, to admit any application of Scripture to lived experience. If Scripture had no intention of making Christ pass into lives of human beings and to regulate their lives after the pattern of him, it would have
no need of completion through tradition.
The apostolic explanation of the content of Scripture, the first and fully authentic explanation of it, coincides in its very nature with the application of the content of Scripture and the passing over of this content into the lives of human beings through the founding of the Church. This foundation was accompanied by concrete specifications for her modes of spiritual life and worship as well as for her hierarchical-sacramental structures based on the Lord’s own indications, structures which correspond to the many appearances of the powers of Christ bestowed to meet the different needs of the faithful. In essence, the content of the apostolic tradition is nothing more than the content of Scripture applied to human life, or made to pass over into the reality of human life through the Church. Hence the Church preserves Scripture, applied through tradition as something which is always new and yet always the same. She preserves it through the hierarchical sacramental structures specified by the Apostles as means whereby the content of revelation, or of Christ himself, passes over into the lives of men. She preserves it as something always new and always the same through the original tradition whereby the Apostles specified these structures, and whereby Christ truly communicates himself from one generation to the next, together with the inexhaustible richness of his bounties. The use of these structures of tradition means that through them, Christ, or the grace of Christ, is integrally received in the Church. This does not mean, however, that the integral Christ needs no further explanation or that further dimensions of his significance and other effects produced by him in the souls of men cannot be brought to light. Tradition, as an explanation of the same Christ, as explanation that is always growing in richness, can be separated neither from the reception of him as the unchanged content of tradition, nor from the outflow of this same grace of his, nor again from the reception of his identical person within the Church through the sacraments and the world that explains him.
Therefore, tradition has two meanings: a) the totality of the various ways by which Christ passes over into the reality of human lives under the form of the Church and all his works of sanctification and preaching; b) the transmission of these ways from generation to generation. Georges Florovsky says that the Apostles gave and, through their successors, the bishops, the Church received not a teaching only, but also the grace of the Holy Spirit. “Ultimately, ‘tradition’ is the continuity of the divine assistance, the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit.”