Tradism must be distinguished from traditionalism. Traditionalism is merely an orthodox, living manifestation of tradition, tradition benig nothing more than the faith and praxis which our Lord gave to us for our salvation, which has been passed down through each new generation within the soul of the body of Christ, the Church. Tradists, however, attempt to petrify tradition and use it as though it were a blunt object for striking opponents down with in the middle of a debate. Tradism is unlove, unhope, unfaith, correctness pridefully blinded by it's own veracity, an anachronism and (spiritual) anscestor worship, disguised as faithfulness to the words of those ancient men with whom the Tradists agree.
Tradism refuses to see that times change, and that the Church changes to meet new circumstances. The Seventh Ecumenical Council dealt with the iconoclasts in a wholly innovative and wonderful way, but their willingness to embrace something new, so as to increase God's glory and facilitate man's salvation, is not even considered by Tradists. It does not fit into their preset mold, which has been created by stringing together a florilegium of patristic proof texts, and then attempting to invest in this compilation infallibility.
Tradism refuses to accept heresy of any kind, or those consecrated by heretics, or that those who came from heretics could be Orthodox before being received properly. Thus, their correctness contradict the mercy of the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, who condemned iconoclasm but nonetheless received the iconoclasts in their priestly rank. For a Tradist, the manner in which St. Meletios of Antioch became a Saint of the Church is scandalous. Consecrated by Arians, he turned on them with an Orthodox confession of faith. History has vindicated this strange manner of becoming a bishop, and those (e.g. Sts. Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus, Basil the Great, etc.) who supported Meletios. The Second Ecumenical Council was, in fact, led by St. Meletios, until his death.
While traditionalists look to the past to inform their understanding, tradists look to the past for proof texts. Traditionalists learn from the past, tradists cultivate bitter arguments to use against their brothers, based on the sweet fruit of the Father's teachings. Tradism refuses to see the Fathers for what they were; for tradists, the Fathers are set in stone and not living, breathing people, effected by their culture and personal tendencies and shortcomings. For the tradist, the Fathers word is law, is applicable to today's problems, and are so simple that you have to be blind to not see what they "obviously" teach. It is no wonder that tradists consider the ROCOR Anathema of Ecumenism to be self-executing: they believe the same about the Fathers, that their words stand as self-executing and self-fulfilling condemnations of anyone who falls within their perceived scope.
Thus, if St. John says that schismatics are worse than heretics, and heretics cannot have grace (and thus neither can schismatics), and a tradist believes that the Greek Church has fallen into schism because of ecumenism and the calendar change, then they must of necessity conclude that the Greek Church is without grace. It's all very logical, according to human logic. It's not Orthodox, but it's logical. It's correct, but not right.
The Fathers erred. But they also spoke with love. When they condemned someone, they did so with aching and tears in their hearts. Most tradists condemn people from their easy chairs, not as a painful admittance, but in a cold and calculated way. Yes, indeed, many Tradists have given up much "for the truth". But this is a psychological phenomenon, not a spiritual one. Anyone who has taken Psych 101 knows that people will give up a lot for totally insane reasons. Many religious Jews gave up their lives rather than renounce their faith, does that make Rabbinical Judaism correct? I might admire them, but their sacrifice doesn't effect whether they are right or not.
Tradists do not understand this simple truth: many who have been correct, have been wrong in their correctness. That is to say, you can be correct without being right.* This is what Fr. Seraphim Rose meant by his profound statement: "We know many converts who grasp at 'correctness' like a baby's bottle, and I think they could save their souls better by being a little 'incorrect' but humbler."
The Old Believers were, in many ways, right; while the hierarchy and "official" Church was, in many ways, wrong. Yet, Orthodoxy has declared that the ones more wrong were, in the end, more right. Obedience and even innovation triumphed over sectarianism. Similar situations arose during the times of St. Gregory Palamas, St. Photius, St. John Chrysostom, etc. In all the cases, the "official" Church was wrong, and the "sectarians" right; yet in all the cases, the sectarians ended up being on the wrong side of the fence when they pushed their correctness too far. Just as today, these men forgot the Scriptural truth: "For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment." (James 2:13)
Perhaps the monks who got tied in sacks and thrown in the sea by iconoclasts would not have been happy with the end result of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Similarly, maybe the new-martyrs of Russia would not be happy with what is going on. Or maybe they would be happy that the problem was coming to an end. Neither is particularly important. The new-martyrs are signs, they are inspirations, they are people to emulate. But whatever they are, they are not personified proof-texts. When St. Justin Popovich spoke of the lives of saints being applied dogmatics, he did not mean that we should use their difficult decisions to justify sectarianism! Certainly St. Justin did not go along with Tradism, though he was a traditionalist.
And now, what are the problems that traditionalism and tradism both point to? First, Sergianism. Second, the calendar change. And third, and most importantly, the pan-heresy Ecumenism. I would submit that most of the objections brought up in the online world are first thought up by tradists, though are then unfortunately passed along and gain popularity among some traditionalists because they seem so logical. Traditionalists, so eager to be correct (which they equate with serving God), many times lose sight of love, mercy, and truth, upon which Christian theology and praxis is based.
First, Sergianism. The initial question is, if people have never affirmed Sergianism, must they repent of it? I am not denying that there are some who were Sergianists that are still alive. However, most of the rhetoric I've seen seems to want to force anyone and everyone associated with certain groups to repent, as though their Grand Father's or Father's sins had passed on to them. Isn't it a bit silly to make someone apologize and repent with sackcloth and ash for something they never believed, and condemn someone they've never supported?
ROCOR many times made an interesting distinction between the laity and priesthood in the Moscow Patriarchate. Whether such a distinction is justifiable in Orthodox thought would be an interesting discussion. But whatever the case, the distinction HAS been made for many decades. The whole of the Christians in Russia (including those attending MP churches) were not condemned. So if they weren't condemned before, and the MP hierarchy has said that Sergianism is dead, then how serious is the problem now?
Why is the Moscow Patriarchate illegitimate? Was St. Meletios also illegit? How about the other people who were consecrated under strange circumstances? One might just as easily ask if the Greek Old Calendarist bishops are legitimate, considering the canonical rules (concerning one church interfering within another's jurisdictional territory) that were broken in consecrating them. Or how about the catacomb Christians who went bishopless, and even priestless, for generations? I bring these questions up not because I seriously want to look into them, but for one reason alone: to illustrate that the grass is not so green on the other side, and that if someone wanted just as many canonical and traditional questions could be asked of tradists.
Second, the calendar change. It must initially be pointed out that we live in a different context. 400 years ago, adoption of the Gregorian calendar would have been, to many people, some type of acknowledgement of the Pope as a leader or person of great importance. Today, however, everyone in the west except us accepts the Gregorian calendar, so one of the the original reasons for rejecting it have fallen away. It is true, that if it were adopted for ecumenistic purposes, then that would be a bad move.
However, one must ask if the calendar change is really a serious enough offense to break communion over. Very few people broke communion over it originally, and it was not until ecumenism started getting really crazy that more people began to make a bigger deal out of it. And even among those who condemned the calendar change as schismatic from the beginning, there has always been disagreements and flip-flopping. The issue is not a black and white one. Just as the canonical principles concerning Jewish doctors and owning slaves cannot be blindly applied to modern circumstances, so to should we be careful when considering the firm condemnations of the Gregorian calendar. We are not wooden literalists.
And Third, Ecumenism. This is a pan-heresy, no doubt about it. However, we must admit that no Council has affirmed this and followed through with condemnations. ROCOR's anathema, while true, is not self-applying, and the ROCOR bishops have chosen to not apply it in specific instances. If it were to be executed, then there would have to be charges, evidence, an ecclesiastical court, a pronouncement, and so forth. None of this has taken place. Neither has a bishop, on his own, tried to apply it as a canonical principle. In a word, it is a sign post, a warning sign, showing the danger of ecumenism, not the road to condemning ecumenism itself.
The canon of the 1st-2nd Council cited often regarding ecumenism says that those who break communion with their bishops before a council condemns the bishop, so long as the bishop is bareheadedly preaching heresy, act in a good way. That's the part the Tradists quote. However, what they don't mention is that this canon nowhere says that those who broke away are then free to condemn the bishop they broke away from as graceless and establish their own synod. Now, this is what ended up happening, and I am not saying that these new groups are not Orthodox... all I am trying to point to is that many of the canons and Fathers that they bring up do not really say or allow what it claimed that they say or allow. There is a lot of reading between the lines.
But why must we do that? Do we not have God-sent, God-inspired men in our midst with each generation? If the question is, is ecumenism enough to break communion over, then we must ask the question: did the great Saints--the ones universally recognized--of the 20th century break communion over it? The answer is no. St. Justin Popovich (an interesting case, but in the end he didn't)? St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco? St. Nikolai of Serbia? And the saints that could be listed are many more. The point, though, is that they did not break communion over the calendar change, over sergianism, or even over ecumenism. They admitted that these are certainly problems... but not so large that they necessitated condemning entire Local Churches.
In the end, I try to be a traditionalist, and not a Tradist. I believe that these categories are flexible, and would not put particular people into one or exclude them from the other. People are too complicated, subtle, and changing to say that they are just one. Probably 99.9% of us would not fall into any one definite category, but would range over many. The above polemic against tradism should not, therefore be taken as an accusation or condemnation of particular people. It is not a definition, but a description of a mindset that one rarely fits perfectly, but can always lean towards to a greater or lesser degree.
Ok, hopefully that will conclude my need to constantly voice my opinion on the matters. Hopefully!
- I am, of course, not using these two words in the normal sense that they are used, but am giving different meanings than one might commonly attribute to them. I do this because I think that they present the paradox best, in that using two totally different words would only lead us into the same old categories and ways of thinking that we have always used... which lands us right back in black-and-white land.
