Do Anglicans view tradition as a series of innovations or more of a definition of a preexisting truth? For example, when the Trinity was defined in the Council of Nicea, would Anglicans view that as an innovation or more of an uncovering/defining of an already preexisting truth? Sorry if this question could have been worded slightly better, I am trying to further understand the historic Anglican position. Thanks!
The way I've seen it explained, tradition actually plays no role in helping to formulate Christian doctrine. That is only reserved for the Scripture. On the other hand, tradition will always develop over time, naturally in the course of years, and in the context of the Church is considered as something pious, something it would be impious and atheistical to overturn rashly, by people unqualified for such a tasks. That is the meaning of "Christian tradition" or "Anglican tradition", the body of things we accept which, while not being Revelation or a source of Doctrine, it would be impious to overturn by ignorant or unbelieving souls. But nevertheless, all truths contained within the body of church tradition are of a category lower than the depositum fidei, the deposit of Faith as taught in Scripture. At the same time, we freely employ the Church Fathers in helping to interpret Scripture, not because they have some secret knowledge, but because they are witnesses to Scripture in the way that later Christians are not, neither John Calvin, nor Pope Pius V, or Martin Luther, or even Thomas Cranmer. As for the Trinity, St. Athanasius in On the Incarnation never appeals to tradition in order to defend the Trinity. He shows it as a simple and clear Scriptural doctrine, present as much in the old as in the new testaments. It's typically a Roman argument to make extra-scriptural tradition as the source for the doctrine of the Trinity (with obvious benefit to them).
Tradition in the context of the three legged stool of Anglicanism though is, in my opinion more than just 'we've always done it this way, so must continue to do so'. There is the joke: Q. How many Anglicans does it take to change a light bulb? A. One, but the rest of the congregation will always tell him how much they preferred the old one. In the case of women's ministry there are some Anglicans, who consider themselves the only true Anglicans, who would rather we all sit in the dark than allow anyone to change the light bulb, so we can all then see what's wrong in the church. So some stumble 'forward in faith' in the dark.
It seems to me that there are 3 types of Anglicans relating to the lightbulb joke: Anglo-Catholic: "Let's replace the lightbulb with some candles." Orthodox Anglican: "The lightbulb isn't actually broken and thus doesn't need to be replaced." Episcopalian: "Let's replace the sexist lightbulb with a rainbow disco ball!"
Perhaps a good place to begin would be Francis Hall’s discussion of tradition in Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 2, Ch. 4, sec. 8-15.
Orthodox Anglican: "We like the dim 40 watt light bulb, so you can't see the place hasn't been dusted in years, and it's our place and we like it that way and if you don't like it girls, then just push off". .
Since I suggested beginning with Hall’s account - as he is the Anglican writer most friendly to the idea of tradition I can think of - it is worth pointing out that his account is both brief and vague, only becoming specific in order to attack St. Augustine’s views on predestination. Yet in a subsequent volume (No. 7), Hall devoted exactly 2 pages (pp. 54-56) to the subject. No attempt was made to deal with the Lutheran-Reformed or intra-Reformed debates on the subject, or to reference the Articles of Religion. The very notion of tradition - something that is inherited, or more literally, “handed on” - implies that there are rules of evidence and procedure, legislation, and means of adjudication, i.e., courts. Rome has this. The Orthodox have this. Anglicans have a rather diminished version of it. Some Reformed/Presbyterian Churches have some form of this as well. It’s not simply a matter of taking a post mortem poll among writers of the first five centuries and seeing what drops out. We know for example that liturgical practice varied from city to city and from region to region. Are they all equally valid alternatives for contemporary practice? Each one of those sets of liturgical practices was a potential basis for a precedent, but in order for there to be a precedent that there has to be a decision resolving a dispute between two parties. That decision could then be binding if we assume that the Church operates under the principle of stare decisis, but should we assume that, given that the Church came to operate on principles of Roman law, centuries before English common law came into existence? The point is, I don’t think the matter is nearly as simple as some hope it to be, if tradition is to be understood as law (similar to Orthodox Judaism), with concomitant spiritual and temporal penalties attached for noncompliance.
I don’t know, every time I listen to a Reformed or Presbyterian podcast, they’re always talking about the “the Reformed tradition”. What it says on this or that topic. Everything that goes on today is judged by this “Reformed tradition”. If something isn’t in accord with “the Reformed tradition” it’s pretty much dead in the water as far as they’re concerned. Richard Muller wrote “Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics”, which is maybe the most influential book in this vein ever written. It crisply identified the threads, thoughts, and names of who and what consisted “Reformed Orthodoxy”, so that everything today is judged by their adherence to the names he named: Oecolampadius, Beza, Calvin, Perkins, Gomarus, Rutherford, Cocceius, Voetius, Boston, Edwards, and many others. I often humorously wondered, how could it be that the Reformed, supposedly the arch anti-traditionalists, had such a high authoritative role for the Reformed tradition. Then I realized it’s only human. Everyone has a version of this for their side. We of course have the exact same thing with our divines: Cranmer, Jewel, Nowell, Saravia, Bancroft, Andrews, Bilson, Hooker, Laud, Hall, Taylor, Bramhall, and others. That’s the substantive thing we call the Anglican tradition. So every major group of Christians actually has something which may be termed its tradition, this hall of fame which has an authority to weigh in on present matters. The difference is that the Eastern Orthodox elevate theirs to being infallible; but in a practical sense, “the Baptist tradition” functions just like “the Eastern Orthodox tradition”. A name is named, an authority is cited, and the point is settled. We all have our traditions. It’s part of life, part of being a Christian.
One other thing I wanted to add to my post above is that if tradition is understood as law, presumably the principle of ‘implied repeal’ applies to it as well, i.e., a later law supersedes a previous law (including long established custom), covering the same subject. An example of this is the depiction of Christ as a lamb in iconography. The 82nd canon of the Council of Trullo - which the Orthodox consider part of the 3rd Council of Constantinople but the Western Church does not - forbade representations of Christ as a lamb, which had been common since the earliest days of Christianity. That prohibition remains in place to this day among the Eastern Orthodox. So, even for the Orthodox it is not simply a matter of asking what was done in the first five centuries. Subsequent legislation and adjudication made that a moot point in this case. A true compendium of the ‘authentic’ tradition of the Church would have to take such instances into account if the intent is for tradition to be the authoritative basis for current practice. I’m not at all optimistic that such an ambitious project could or would be successful, if for no other reason than that we’ve never done that before, which in a way answers the original question of this thread.