Tradition and the Modern Theologians

The modern Orthodox doctrine of Tradition is largely the achievement of the twentieth-century theological recovery, above all in the Russian emigration. This section treats that recovery — Lossky’s “Tradition and traditions,” Florovsky’s neo-patristic synthesis, and the Paris school — and the wider conversation into which it entered: Khomiakov and the Slavophiles on sobornost, and the Orthodox–Catholic–Protestant dialogue on Tradition (Congar; the 1963 Montreal Faith and Order statement), treated soberly and without adjudication.

Tradition: Pan-Orthodox

Overview

Much of what this compendium has expounded — the pneumatological definition of Tradition, the Tradition/traditions distinction, the neo-patristic synthesis, the doctrine of reception — was given its classic modern form in the twentieth century, and largely by the Russian emigration in Paris. This section places that recovery in its setting and traces its two faces: the constructive dogmatic achievement of Lossky and Florovsky, and the ecumenical conversation in which Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant theologians, after centuries of talking past one another about “Scripture and Tradition,” began in the mid-twentieth century to converge — a convergence crowned by the 1963 Montreal statement. The section is written both-sides and reports the dialogue soberly, as an unfinished and unadjudicated conversation.

Files in This Section

File Description
lossky-florovsky-and-the-neopatristic-synthesis.md The twentieth-century recovery — Lossky’s “Tradition and traditions,” Florovsky’s neo-patristic program, the Paris school (St. Sergius, St. Vladimir’s) and its legacy
khomiakov-sobornost-and-the-ecumenical-dialogue.md Khomiakov and the Slavophiles on sobornost; the Orthodox–Catholic–Protestant dialogue on Tradition — Congar, the 1963 Montreal Faith and Order statement — both-sides and unadjudicated

See Also