From Dom Gregory Dix, widely respected Liturgical Scholar, in his work The Theology Of Confirmation In Relation To Baptism
We know now, too, that the Apostolic paradosis of practice, like the Apostolic paradosis of doctrine, is something which actually ante-dates the writing of the New Testament documents themselves by some two or three decades. It is presupposed by those documents and referred to more than once as authoritative in them. This paradosis of practice continued to develop in complete freedom from any control by those documents for a century after they were written, before they were collected into a New Testament ‘Canon’ and recognized for the first time as authoritative ‘Scripture’ beside and above the Jewish ‘Scriptures’ of the Old Testament, which alone formed the ‘Bible’ of the Apostolic Church. Now that the history of the Canonization of the New Testament is better understood, we can begin to shake ourselves free from the sixteenth century — or rather the medieval — delusion that primitive Christian Worship and Church Order must have been framed in conscious deference to the precedents of a New Testament which as such did not yet exist. The purely occasional documents now found in it do not contain, and were never intended by their authors to contain, anything like the Old Testament codes of prescriptions for the rites of worship. That was governed by the authoritative ‘Apostolic Tradition’ of practice, to which it is plain that the scattered Gentile Churches adhered pretty rigidly throughout the second century. I am not for a moment seeking to question the authoritative weight of the New Testament Scriptures for us as a written doctrinal standard. I am only trying to point out that there is available another source of information on the original and authentic Apostolic interpretation of Christianity, which the Scriptures presuppose and which must be used in the interpretation of the Scriptures. I do not deny that in time the recognition of this fact will be bound to lead to some considerable readjustment of ideas for more than one set of people. But tonight all I would say is that the liturgical tradition can be shewn to be older in some of its main elements than the New Testament Scriptures, and that down to the end of the second century, at least, it was regarded as having an ‘Apostolic’ authority of its own independently of them. We cannot look, therefore, for any attempt in this period to conform the practice of worship to them artificially. Nevertheless, the two do illustrate one another in a remarkable way.
Some thoughts on this passage:
1. “there is available another source of information on the original and authentic Apostolic interpretation of Christianity, which the Scriptures presuppose and which must be used in the interpretation of the Scriptures”… to discard this other source is to lose the ability to interpret Scripture in a consistent way, hence the extreme splintering amongst post-reform confessions.
2. “The purely occasional documents now found in (the NT) do not contain, and were never intended by their authors to contain, anything like the Old Testament codes of prescriptions for the rites of worship.”… hence the wide variety of worship rites practiced amongst the churches spawned from the reformation – a sola scriptura approach leaves one without a coherent instruction in worship
3. “in time the recognition of this fact will be bound to lead to some considerable readjustment of ideas for more than one set of people”… Dix put this out in about 1948. It’s not unusual to see a lag on the order of a couple decades between the time scholars begin publishing on a topic and the time the effects are measurable among the general populace. So I think Dix was correct judging from the growing number of converts from protestant circles to Roman Catholic and Orthodox liturgical communions.
Thanks to a guy named Andrew over at Energetic Procession for the Dix quotation.
paradosis – parawho?
Anyway, I will show you an example from Scripture that exposes a great big flaw in your statement that “that there is available another source of information on the original and authentic Apostolic interpretation of Christianity, which the Scriptures presuppose and which must be used in the interpretation of the Scriptures.” This example is 1st Corinthians 5 and its relation to the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
In 1st Corinthians 5, Paul sets out to correct the church on the matter of overlooking and tolerating a man living in his with his step-mother. Paul’s instructions are that rather than being proud of their ultra-tolerance they ought to mourn, and take disciplinary steps, to deliver such a person to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his soul might be saved in the day of the Lord. He tells them not to eat with such a person, not to keep company with him, etc. Then he draws a Eucharistic analogy, saying in verses 7-8 “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” Paul presupposes that they are observing the Eucharist with unleavened bread, with azumes, for he uses the unleavened nature of the bread to illustrate the unleavened (sinless) nature of the church. As he says in 1 Corinthians 10, we being many are one body for we are all partakers of that one bread – in a sense, we are then the bread. And like that bread, he argues in 1 Corthinains 5:7-8, we must be unleavened for Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us and his blood will make us unleavened (i.e. sinless by removing our sins) according to 1 John 1:7-9 if we walk in the light, continually repent, and confess our sins. Therefore, the man who lives in unrepentant sin, on purpose, like this man living in sin with his step-mother, such a man is leaven, and must be removed since we as that one bread are to be an unleavened lump. “Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” means that we must keep the feast of the Eucharist not only with unleavened bread in the literal sense, but also we must be unleavened bread ourselves, we must be a repentant people. Therefore, whoever will not repent, is to be excommunicated. This is the thrust of the chapter. Yet, what the liturgy draws from this is the opposite of Paul’s meaning, for they say “purge out the old leaven, and put in new leaven” and thus leavened bread is used in the Eucharist. But this is the opposite of what Paul says, for he says “Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” Again, the liturgy and tradition will allege that unleavened bread is a fast and leavened bread is a feast, and we do not fast but feast on Sundays and therefore must use leavened bread. But observe Paul’s opposite words “Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” He calls unleavened bread a feast a bids us feast with it and not with leaven. Thus, liturgy becomes opposed to Paul and to the Scripture.
Hi Rey – thanks for your comments.
First, “paradosis” refers to the handing down of instruction or tradition, as in “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions (Gk: paradosis – a handing down, established practice) which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter…” 2 Thess 2
I would address your concerns in three parts.
(1) the issue of leaven/unleaven can be (and has been) used as a point of dialectic regarding the gifts used for administration of the Body of Christ in the Mysteries (or Eucharist, or Sacrament) – but is not a valid basis for argument against Liturgy (the work of the people). For example, the Roman Catholic church and some Protestant confessions conduct liturgy and use only unleavened bread for the gifts that they use in their version of the sacrament. Supposing we accepted your argument against use of leavened bread per your understanding of 1 Cor 5, we will have rejected the way the Eastern Church administers the Mysteries, but we will not have rejected anything about Western liturgies at all, nor even anything about the Eastern liturgy other than that one aspect.
(2) St. Paul is not, as I understand it, making any comment in 1 Cor 5 about the Eucharist. He calls to the mind of all in the Corinthian church the Jewish Passover, in particular the rigors that went into the purging of all leaven in preparation for that feast, and uses that example, indeed that type, to exhort the church to use at least the same vigor to purge out all sin by all means possible – the opposite of what they were doing in tolerating or even concealing sin present among them. Jews of the time would vigorously expel all leaven from all borders – per the rubric for Passover: “’At the entrance of the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, they searched for leaven in all the places where they were wont to use leaven, even in holes and crannies; and that not by light of the sun and moon, or torch, but by the light of a wax candle,’…because it is the fittest for searching holes and corners, and because the Scripture speaketh of searching Jerusalem with candles.”
Why? St. Paul leverages the lesson of Passover, and applies it to what is now our constant feast, as St. John Chrysostom says in commentary “the whole of time is a festival unto Christians, because of the excellency of the good things which have been given. For what hath not come to pass that is good? The Son of God was made man for thee; He freed thee from death; and called thee to a kingdom. Thou therefore who hast obtained and art still obtaining such things, how can it be less than thy duty to “keep the feast” all thy life?” – and likewise, diligently purge leaven (in the sense Paul speaks of in 1 Cor) utterly from our lives.
(3) An argument that the portion of Liturgy dealing with Communion should utilize unleavened bread exclusively would be compelling if leaven was always associated with evil in Scriptures – but it’s not. The Kingdom of Heaven is like leaven (Matthew, Luke). It can be used metaphorically both ways. Looking to the Holy Fathers of the Church, St. Justin Martyr points out concerning Passover that, “after the seven days of eating unleavened bread, God commanded them to mingle new leaven, that is, the performance of other works, and not the imitation of the old and evil works”. St. Ignatius said, “Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ.” Commenting on Romans, “For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy”, St. Irenaeus says “’the lump meant us, that is, the rational Church, the lump of which they say He assumed, and blended it with Himself, inasmuch as He is ‘the leaven.’”. Did you notice that two of those quotes illustrated our view, going back to the first century of the Church, that Jesus is Himself the leaven that vivifies the Kingdom of God, and hence we have no problem using leavened bread for the Eucharist.
Best Regards.