Some of the emails I've gotten and some of the public replies to my post on division and the Church have prompted me to some further reflection on the thing we "traditionalists" call the Holy Tradition. My reflections will unfold in two parts, of which this is the first, each part having to do with a different connotation of the question which is the title of this post. That is to say, one connotation of "Why Tradition?" is the sense of explanation, or what we mean when we say things like "Holy Tradition." The other connotation is "Why Tradition?" in the sense of justification and defense.
Many of the comments I've received have to do with an understanding that is radically at odds with the way we "traditionalists" understand ourselves when we say "Tradition." I am coming from the Orthodox perspective (insofar as I can best represent it), so mine will be different in some emphases from what an Anglican or a Roman Catholic means by "Tradition." But in that we are all referring to that living experience which has been transmitted from the Apostles down to our own day, we can said to be of one mind on the matter, and I hope to accurately reflect that mind.
First, what we do not mean by Holy Tradition. We do not mean those things that are not universal in shape and content to the entire apostolic Church. We also do not mean by Holy Tradition a set of legal codes or rules that must be unquestioningly obeyed at all times. We do not mean a love of the past merely for the past's sake. We do not mean a fortress into which we can retreat from the social realities we find troubling and distasteful. And we certainly do not mean by Holy Tradition a state of power in which we get to control the behaviors of other people. All of this is most emphatically not what we are