It took a little longer to return to this subject than I thought. But, what is Holy Tradition?
In order to understand more about Holy Tradition, it is very helpful at this time to use a way of speaking that is much more common in the East than in the West. And that is what is called variously, Apophatic Theology, the Via Negativa, or Negative Theology. One description of the Via Negativa is, “In brief, the attempt is to gain and express knowledge of God by describing what God is not (apophasis), rather than by describing what God is.” The most famous bit of negative theology is enshrined in our definition of Jesus Christ Himself. Who is Jesus? Why, “. . . Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ ; . . .” In other words, our definition of Christ is composed of four negatives without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. The reason for the four negatives was that there was no way to express who Jesus is using a “positive” description.
In the same way the Via Negativa can be and has been used for other areas of our life in Christ. (In fact, I should note that there have been some in the East who have taken the Via Negativa so far that they have become almost unable to speak about God.) Holy Tradition is best spoken about using Apophatic Theology rather than using Cataphatic Theology. In fact, one of my fellow bloggers, Sarx, with all his questions has actually helped to show that cataphatic, or positive, theology is not able to give a good definition of Holy Tradition.
So, if we can not really say what Holy Tradition is, can we say what it is not? I think so. And, in saying what it is not, I think that, like our Lord Jesus Christ, we can find a definition with which we can live.
—MORE TO COME—
I am greatly enjoying this series, Fr. I especially enjoy the concept that while we can’t say what it is, we can say what it is not.
But this was a stunner for me: “In other words, our definition of Christ is composed of four negatives without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. The reason for the four negatives was that there was no way to express who Jesus is using a “positive†description.”
Thanks.