How to read the fathers of the Church

[Christopher]

Hi everybody,

I have never studied patristics before, but have been drawn to the conclusion that I would like to take it up. But I don't really know where to begin. Does anyone here in the boards have any advice for beginning the study of patristics?

Thank you very much
christopher

[Owen Jones]

Dear Christopher,

I would recommend that you stay away from theological treatises for now and focus on Patristic sermons for a while in order to get a sense of the mindset of the FAthers. There should be plenty of things on line to access. Or a seminary library.

[Justin]

Two things that I would suggest (as a fellow newby to reading the Church Fathers) would be to 1. Try to understand the context in which the authors that you are reading wrote, and 2. Always remember that context. If you're going to read some stuff by a particular Father, or particular time in the Church, it might help to get a background of the context of the writing(s), and a bit about what was going on at the time. It's also important to always keep the context of the writing in mind and not to judge the author according to our modern sensibilities (e.g., something that may seem extremely harsh to us today may have been a common rhetorical wording 1400 years ago, and vice versa). Remember then, when you're reading the cosmological speculations of John of Damascus, or the Homilies against the Jews by John Chrysostom, that many of the Fathers lived in radically different contexts than the world we are living in. Happy reading, friend :-)

[Owen Jones]

With respect to Justin, this is precisely how one should not read the fathers. There is an inner spiritual meaning to patristic thought which is not dependent on historical or cultural circumstances. One must overcome the modern tendencies to objectivize and literalize, or to psychologize and contextualize. But this is not an analytical process. It comes through prayer and meditation and self-control.

[Mitrophan Chin]

Isn't this the same issue with the Antiochene school of taking everything literally verses the Alexandrian school of allegorizing everything which brought Origen into heresy. My evangelical upbringing taught that the literal approach is embraced as the best approach for the scholarly and spiritualizing text esp. the Bible is frowned upon as not objective enough.

But the two approaches don't have to be mutually exclusive. Maybe just take the balance of the two since the Church recognizes many followers of both schools to be Church Fathers.

In XC, Mitrophan

[Owen Jones]

The Antiochene "school" did not literalize everything and Origen did not allegorize everything. these tend to be modern academic categories. There were levels of understanding in classical Christianity which mirrors the levels of progress within the Church -- the three-fold path of purification-illumination-sanctification. The esoteric theology of many of the Fathers is not intended to be understood apart from this three-fold path of ascesis. The mind of the fathers cannot be fathomed intellectually, using "modern" academic methods. There is a unity to all of the Orthodox fathers just as there is a unity of Scripture, even though some things can be read on different levels at once -- the historical/moral/ethical. The Antiochenes may have tended toward concreteness, whereas the Greeks have always tended toward more abstraction, but that is the primary disctinction.

The problem when we try to read and understand the fathers is our context -- the lack of an ascetical discipline that is designed to transform our sense perception and intellect that permits us to see things as they really are.

Lacking that, the best way I have found to understand the fathers is to begin with their sermons, and try to read them simply and prayerfully and meditatively. The inner focus has to be right. John Calvin read the Fathers extensively but obviously missed something.

The controversy over Origen, by the way, is a lot more complicated. But my view is that it represented a hardening of theological dogma into propositional statements, which they are not. Truth, according to the FAthers, is not a set of propositional statements handed down from heaven, but a spiritual realm we are transported into, marked by a real, substantial change in our nature and our perception of nature.

[Justin]

Owen

I understand what you are saying, and in fact I've argued that same point with a number of Protestants who thought that the Greek Fathers were "trapped" in a certain cultural mindset. I was not saying that we should approach the texts as rationalists trying to put everything into it's proper box; I fully affirm the Orthodox meaning of "theologian," and not the modern western definition. What I was trying to get across, however, was that when someone starts reading the Fathers, whether it be Saint Basil the Great in the 4th century or Saint Justin Popovich in the 20th century, they need to understand the context out of which the material is coming. If you are going to study some of Athanasius' later works, it's important to know that not all the Emperors affirmed Nicaea, that much of the world was arian, that Saint Athanasius had been exiled numerous times, that the Arians were using lies and sometimes force in attempts to keep control, and so forth. Without know this stuff, you might lose perspective regarding what Saint Athanasius was saying, or more accurately, how we should "understand" the texts.

How many people have read monastic literature and then went off the deep-end because they tried to put into practice what they had read? not understanding that what they were reading was meant for a different context (most importantly, being under the guidance of a spiritual father in a controlled environment).

[CharistinaCatavolos]

Christ is Risen!!!
--I believe we should remember that these texts were written in the FULLNESS of the Holy Spirit and cannot be understood unless as the Lord says "To be in the Right Mind",;I 've found that first reading the Book, The Life in Christ, and also John Climacus' Book The Ladder of Divine Ascent has helped b e to acquire the Focus and the correct "Breathing" if you will, of attaining a higher Ascent, and when you get the chance take a trip to Greece and visit a Monastery .. I met a Mother in a Monastery in Kalamata, who didn't even know what a Television or Hollywood is.... NOW, imagine ,living on this Earth ,but not of this Earth.. thats what these Texts are aboutand the depths they werer written FROM-- the Belief and Depths of your desire and the thirst of wanting complete Focus... on Christ and Being in the Right Mind.....and opening the deepest chamber of Your Heart..... not recognizing what your circumstances are here on Earth or whats called common Belief here on Earth... You choose the Depths of your Island or Paradise that you live on ;so if you have that in mind , when reading the Texts... you will be so open and in the sweet fullness of the Holy Spirit... you will gain the Wisdom...."Sofia " to You!

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Christopher, Owen, Justin, Mitrophan, Charistina and others,

As an aside in this discussion, which I am finding particularly interesting thus far:

With respect to beginning the study and appreciation of the Fathers, I can pass along a thought I have shared with other people in this situation. I am happy to repeat it because it is not my own advice: it was taught to me when I first began to read the Fathers, and I cannot count the number of times I have heard it repeated, by priest and scholar alike, since then.

If one truly desires to take up the task of entering into the patristic mindset, of reading and comprehending the Fathers, of learning of the truths which they have to proclaim, the first thing to be done is to set them all aside. If you desire to read the Fathers, first put away their texts and come to know the Gospels. For if you want to know the Fathers, you will want to live and learn as they did, and the Fathers made their beginning in the Gospel of Christ.

From there, with the Gospel in one's mind, pick up the Fathers' texts. When you think you've begun to understand one of them, read the Gospels again. When you are at a point where you seem not to understand them at all, again pick up the Gospels.

This is a far cry from any concept of 'sola scriptura', last anyone think that this is what such 'advice' amounts to. It is the admission that the Fathers lived and breathed the Gospel of Christ. It was the heart and the source of their reflections; and the full revelation of God, which the Fathers themselves help bring to us, was stirred up in them by the living out of the Gospel of the Son.

From an Orthodox perspective, the purpose of the study of the Fathers is not simply to come to know these men and women themselves, but to come to know God. In this pursuit, one is best to begin in the same manner as did these holy people, namely through the encounter with God in the Gospel as proclaimed in the Churches and in the Scriptures. If this is taken as a beginning, the encounter with the teachings of the Fathers tends to be much more fruitful.

XB, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

I would simply add that the Greek Fathers were, by and large, products of the Platonic academy. Their theological treatises contain a euclidean order to them. While all Patristic theology is an extended meditation on the fruits of Holy Scripture, they also were trained in the idea that theologia was the apex of the sciences, with geometry as its foundation. The more esoteric texts, such as found in St. Maximos, contain a number theory upon which all theology is presumed to be based.

That's really why I recommend anyone starting out to focus on the sermons. IN the sermons you will find both a profound pastoral understanding of the problems of sin and obedience, as well as a lofty expectation of the deification of our nature and that of the cosmos. The inner life or soul of man is really the greater cosmos that contains all of the elements of the physical cosmos plus consciousness. This patristic mindset is very nicely summed up in St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain's Spiritual Counsels. It's on the first page.

Actually, this is not a bad book to start with for an introduction to the Fathers. He was well acquainted with all of the 19th Century "higher criticism" and therefore is conscious of the need to reach "modern" people while being consistent with the Fathers. Context is not all bad!

But if I had to research all of the early church heresies before reading the Fathers I'm afraid I would never get started!

[John Manutes]

In St. Stephan's Course, Patristics I: The Fathers of the Church during the First Five Hundred Years, requires the following textbook;

"Kelly, J.N.D. "Early Christian Doctrines (New York; Harper and Row, 1978).

This may be a good book to start re: the study of patristics.

Christ Is Risen,
John

[Theron Mathis]

Brothers & Sisters,

Owen makes a great point in recommending St. Nicodemus. Although Nicodemus does not fall within the time frame of the Patristics; he is in full keeping with their spirit, and could rightly be called a Church Father.

Another suggestion along the same vein that has helped me is to read another modern Father--St. Theophan the Recluse. In fact, many of the 19th century Russian saints do a great job translating the Patristic mind into modernity. You also begin to learn which of the Fathers were important to them, by noticing the ones that they quote.

The homilies are by far the best place to start, and I am looking forward to the publishing of St. Gregory Palamas' sermons as well.

God Bless,

Theron Mark

[M.C. Steenberg]

With regard to some of the above discussion on how to approach the Fathers, in terms of how one might begin to read their texts, I might offer the comment that the various views expressed all have a certain amount to offer. As the conversation seems to have gone thus far, the following approaches have been mentioned:

(1) - Contextual (mentioned here): The reading of the Fathers should take into account the context in which a given Father, or collection of Fathers, was writing, and that this context should have some interpretive value in 'reading' (i.e. assessing the meaning of) the text at hand.

(2) - Prayerful / Meditational (first mentioned here): The reading of the Fathers should not be overly analytical or historicised, but should be wrought through prayer and a disciplined approach to the interior meaning of the texts. This view was expounded a bit differently as:

(3) - Spiritual (mentioned here): The Fathers wrote their texts as men and women 'filled with the Holy Spirit', whose lives were illumined by and in harmony with this Spirit. Thus the reading of the Fathers must come about through a disciplined effort to attain to the same kind of spiritual illumination.

In reality, all three of these views are true in some degree of the task of reading the Fathers. Indeed these men and women were, according to the Church, illumined by the Spirit and beholders of the Truth of God to a degree that most of us are not. Therefore to understand the depth of what they teach, some element of 'like approach' is necessary, in that one cannot truly read the Fathers without making an attempt to grow as close to God as they did. One may not succeed at this within one's own lifetime, but it is the obedience and discipline of the effort that is part of the process: illumination comes, in part, through purification, and if one is not attempting to attain to some level of purification and illumination, one cannot hope to encounter the fulness of the message to be found in the Fathers' writings. There is a very real 'ascetical side' to the reading of the Fathers that is not appreciated often enough, especially in academic study. But according to the teachings of the Church, such an 'ascetic approach' is the only way to ensure genuine encounter with the message of these texts.

Part of this ascetical approach is the ascent of knowledge, of which the Fathers themselves have much to say. This growth in knowledge of 'divine things' involves, to varying degrees depending on one's spiritual advancement, the movement beyond the surface value of words and contexts, to an inner, non-intellectual (or, better, a supra-intellectual) comprehension of divine truth. This is to be sought in reading the Fathers, as Owen mentioned above.

Yet Justin's point is also valid, for it is fair to say that not every passage in patristic literature is deeply interior. Yes, there are always interior meanings to be found, and which one hopes and must try to discern. But the Fathers were also concerned, very often in fact, with the 'mundane' (in that term's non-pejorative sense), the historical, social situations of the day -- with the contexts and situations of their time, whether these be debates over the language used in expressing the Trinitarian nature of God, or the type of oil to be used in Church lamps. Knowing these contexts, appreciating these situations, does in fact help one to recognise the 'framework' within which a given Father wrote, and thus the background from which all his or her points are made. The context is not the goal of one's study, but it certainly helps one approach the Father from whom he or she hopes to learn something. In reading St Basil, for example, the context of the Arian and Trinitarian controversies --the rather life-consuming battles in which he, among others, was engaged-- was the social 'fabric' in which he lived each day of his life. His thought, even at its inner levels, was motivated by the desire to show forth the truth in response to these errors. In appreciating the context ourselves, we can know something deep and personal about the saint, and this can help us in drawing closer both to the outer, historical meanings of his texts, as well as the inner mysteries they present.

Very often, in patristic studies, I hear these methods of 'inner' and 'outer' interpretation presented as strong and irreconcilable opposites: one must choose one or the other, usually with the implication that there is only one right choice to be made. But the Fathers themselves, in interpreting one another, did so in both 'inner' and 'outer' manners, showing each of us how a knowledge of context can reveal deeper, mysterious and contemplative truths behind the surface details of a text. The methods are not mutually exclusive, but each has a value and a place in approaching the fulness of the message to be received from the Fathers of the Church.

XB, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

yes, Mathew, the FAthers saw two levels of reality: sensible reality and intelligible reality, and they cannot be in conflict. One begins with sensible reality and through meditation on things, their true nature and purpose, then only can one ascend to the level of intelligible reality. There is also a most important disctinction between Creator and created, which, one might say, is an absolute distinction. One must not confuse these distinctions, which is typically the underlying cause of all heresies.

This is the problem with all modern ideologies. These distinctions have been eliminated.

owen jones

[Richard McBride]

Christos Anesti!

“Beginning Patristics”?
Hardly! I wonder if Christopher’s curiosity has been whetted? Or over sated? It seems there is no end to the wisdom opened up herein. This has been an amazingly provocative thread. Even as Matthew has divided the question between Context and Spirit -- mediated by Prayer, in order to illustrate that the poles are not in such opposition that they have become mutually exclusive -- even as the subject is thus divided, it also raises yet more questions of categories.

Presently, I think of a different set of categories according to the viewpoints of message readers. Matthew neatly offered the essential internal and external categories, but he also suggested a potentially different set of realms by introducing the “mundane” (by which he meant, “the historical, social situations of the day -- with the contexts and situations of their time, whether these be debates over the language used in expressing the Trinitarian nature of God, or the type of oil to be used in Church lamps.”)

But also, this category of the mundane could hardly exclude daily praxis of all kinds. Particularly, it recalls the daily concerns, the mundane viewpoints, of the readers as well as of the writers. This is necessarily a two way street should we attempt to fabricate the context of the past. Yet, for instance I wonder: Are we justified in laying upon the anchoretic works of Saint Anthony the Great, that which we understand as his retreat into the desert of scorpions and demons? May we go beyond these metaphors into the smells in the towns as well as the furies of his mind? For surely, if we seek the details we cannot avoid painting it all with the colours we understand. Does our curiosity justify an interest in such contextual particulars?

The sticking point here is precisely, “the historical, social situations of the day -- with the contexts and situations of their time...” If the mundane category be characterized by such details, then we all must become translators -- and I’m not certain that even translators are able to sanitize their own predilections from muddling the revealed brew. Contrarily, I think Matthew may also have meant the more earthly necessities of the mundane life as well. In other words, there is the normal viewpoint of housewives and ditch diggers who must be concerned for their own inner and external selves, and who must also be seeking the wisdom of Saint Anthony the Great. Contextualism is hardly their bag.

But there are other categories. In a less mundane sense there are the more specialized requirements of seminary students and presbyters. They obviously have a different need, requiring a different set of filters for digesting the works of Saint Anthony the Great, et al. And beyond them is the rare breed of religious who operate as theologians. And perhaps at about this level reside the translators. I cannot set the correct levels, for I am outside these loops. But we all may imagine the different demands brought to bear upon the vast quantity of Spirit given material handed down over the ages. And I must say, in all of these categories, it is most difficult for me to be convinced that at any point it is appropriate to actually dig into the context of that time. I think it is an ideal held by many, but I cannot imagine attaining that ideal. So, what sort of fantasies do we, who operate under such presumptions, force into the material we produce?

Well, I suppose at this point we should say it is up to the Holy Spirit to make His presence felt, to arbitrate between the fanciful and factual. Right?

If so, then we who yearn to absorb the Truth from all these beautiful tracts, we, whether translators or mere readers, should do well to leap over the presumption of context and simply rely upon the other two methods of discernment: Prayer and Spiritual revelation (or as Seraphim so wisely puts it, “purification-illumination-sanctification”).

Precisely because Contextualism is a prized tool of scholars, I refer to its shortcomings. And I say this less because it is necessarily an atheistic regimen, but more because the purpose here is idealistic, taken from a philosophy which abhores Idealism. It is seductive and modern, and it is this pit of notions into which one necessarily digs when one seeks contextual confirmation. It cannot be avoided, no matter how innocently (or naively) one attempts to spread this stuff on their bread.

Alithos Anesti!

[Joseph Lovell]

Christ is Risen!

This is a very interesting and enjoyable thread, and I wish to thank Christopher for starting it.

But, and you knew that that word was coming didn't you, I'm reading posts that seem to suggest that the average person is unable to understand the words of the early Fathers. If one must have special training or a special mindset to understand have we not become gnostics who grant understanding only to the elect few?

Why not read the works of the Fathers just to enjoy and be enlightend by their words (often through rereading), and revel in the clairity of thought and expression? They were real men, writing for real people, with real concerns of their own.

A passage in St. Paul's letter to Timothy brought this home to me and made the Bible a real living work for today - his helper had deserted him so he writes and asks for a new assistant, oh, and by the way, send my clothes, books and especially the parchments along, too, I really need them. Obviously paraphrased there, but it shows a real man who because of luggage limitations or just because he had to leave town in a hurry (one of his jail breaks?) had to basically ditch his gear and hit the road. This made the point to me, after reading it for I don' know how many years, that these words were not by ST. PAUL, with rubrication and all sorts of calligraphic illumination, speaking from behind a podium, but Paul, a fellow traveler who is trying to make it a bit easier for us to find the path, and were meant to be read and understood by anyone, not just a few scholars.
So I say, read the fathers several times, and don't trust just one translation. Then, if you find things that are confusing, find a scholar or theologian or some such to answer your questions.

Yours in Christ,
Joseph

[M. Rallis]

Fr. John Chryssavgis, currently a professor at Holy Cross School of Theology, has written a book: The Way Of The Fathers, Exploring The Patristic Mind. The contents of this book may be of some interest to those following this thread. The following is quoted from the foreword written by Archimandrite Vasileios, the Abbot of Iviron Monastery, Mt. Athos:

" ...For the Fathers of the Church are not restricted by any limited human endeavor. Rather, desiring their salvation and offering their lives to God though the Church, being wholly consecrated unto God, they become theological centerpoints, witnesses of the Kingdom. They do not teach aspects of their intellect, but existentially reveal the repose that they found in God. Thy are not mere thinkers or founders of philosophical systems, but persons filled with God,manifesting the original beauty of humanity and in the world the uncreated divine energy that works everything in their heart."

[John Wehling]

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!

Richard writes, "Joseph's translation of a portion of one of Saint Paul's letters is a pleasant respite...However, I cannot approve of it, for neither do I approve of liberties taken with such things as the Inclusive version of the NT..... Therefore, if we were to encourage Joseph in his respites into vernacular, then we should also have opened the wide door to Inclusiveness, and to any number of further heresies."

With all due respect, Richard, I think you are being quite unfair to Joseph. He specifically said that he was "paraphrasing" St Paul, not offering a new translation. And paraphrasing St Paul in the way he did is hardly the same as introducing feminine language for God. If you wish to attack Oxford's Inclusive-Language Bible, by all means have at it. But Joseph's paraphrase has nothing to do with it or with the philosophy/agenda behind it.

John

[Richard McBride]

Christos Anesti !

Whoa, there John! You’re hollerin’ Giddy Up, while I’m sittin’ at a stop light.

You were disturbed over my message and said:


If you wish to attack Oxford's Inclusive-Language Bible, by all means have at it. But Joseph's paraphrase has nothing to do with it or with the philosophy/agenda behind it.

Forgive me for creating angst. I had tried to clearly typify Joseph’s comment (which I called, “a pleasant respite”) as a resort to vernacular; contrarily, the other comments were aimed at the abomination of Inclusivism. Do you feel that they are linked?

It may be that they seem linked because I cannot excuse either a resort to vernacular or one to inclusivism in translating the set works of Christianity. I hope Joseph will not take offence -- unless he believes that the Bible should be reduced to hip hop and blasted from car speakers amidst the gangs. There are many who would champion such a move.

Otherwise, if you are disturbed because I seem to brook no compromise in allowing vernacular/inclusivism into Scripture and the Writings (under guise of translation), then you are perfectly correct. I have no apology for that. The Filioque was not the first of these heresies, and I suppose mother goddess will not be the last. Still, I should like to think that you and Joseph stand with me on the side of Photios, allowing no compromise in these the easy days, before the tribulation begins. Do not let the presumption of “attacking Joseph” keep you from standing on the side of truth. For my part, I intend no such “attack” here. These are only wake up calls. I save my attacks for the enemy, not the brothers.

So, be not double minded, brothers and sisters. Be focused on where heresies lie, for as they say, the devil is in the details.

Alithos Anesti !

[Vlad Benea]

I don't know if this fits here, but what does "inclusivism" mean?

Passing by the controversies regarding Joseph's message, I would like to say that in my oppinion he does give a good advice. Read the Fathers with an open heart and being true to yourself, and we trust God to lead you through the rest, so that you find what your heart desires and needs in their writings. At least that's the way I did (not being conscious of it though). In fact, that was the way I found God (the way God found me I think would fit more). My first book was St.'s Silouan of Athos book, if that's of interest to you, and then ewverything followed, for I could not stop reading more and more of the Fathers, nor could I read anything else. It was like all my life I had been drinking water from a swamp, and then suddenly I had found this incredible fountain, with cold, fresh water.
That's the way I felt it, and I am not able to thank God enough for it.
Vlad

[Joseph Lovell]

Christ is Risen!

My basic question seems to have gotten lost in the discussion about my paraphrasing.
I had asked why not read the works of the Fathers for the pure joy of reading them, and through rereading to gain enlightenment. If both the Holy Scriptures and the works of the Fathers are to be of benefit to man they must not exist on an elevated plane, accessable only to the elect scholars, but must be accessable to everyone. Vlad seems to have picked that up, but somehow it was lost on the others.

As to using the vernacular, it seems to me that historically the Orthodox Church has used the vernacular. As I understand it, vernacular has a primary meaning of the language of a region or country. Sts. Cyril and Methodios translated into the vernacular when they taught the Slavs, St. Innocent of Alaska translated from his native Russian into the vernacular when he taught the natives of Alaska. Does Mr. McBride feel that rather than translating into the vernacular that these men should have taught the natives to read and speak Greek? Was anything lost from the Gospels by those translations? Or for that matter , was anything lost by translating into the vernacular of Brittania or into Cymru? Vernacular need not be a perjoritive term.

Mr. McBride wrote "I hope Joseph will not take offence -- unless he believes that the Bible should be reduced to hip hop and blasted from car speakers amidst the gangs."
None taken, I realize that this is a friendly discussion and the free exchange of ideas and opinions.
For formal usage, such as Liturgies or scholarly discourse, I can agree with you. And while I shudder at the thought of hearing the Gospel in hip-hopese, if I were able to tranlate the Bible into that dialect and then walk through, let's say East Oakland, with the Paschal Canon blasting from my boom box (and right now in my mind I'm kind of hearing Fr. Gennay of Vaalam's smooth Slavonic in rap time, very strange) and bring one person to Orthodoxy, I would feel that the effort would be justified. Once you get the hook set, then you can instruct in more formal language. And, may I ask, why would one NOT want to try to bring the Gospel to the gangs? Are they, because of their station, unworthy of hearing and learning the words of Christ? And, contrary to what some say, Christ did not speak in Shaksperean Engilsh, in fact, I don't think that most Elizabethians spoke in Shakspearean English.

I seem to have wandered off of the "Beginning patristics" subject, so let me restate my basic idea.
If the words of the Fathers and Scripture are to be of benefit to man they must not be seen to exist on such a high level as to be understandable by only the few elect scholars who then pass on their understanding to the masses, but rather they must be able to be understood by the housewife and ditch digger.
Read the words of the Fathers to revel in the clairity of thought and precision of expression. Enjoy the humor, marvel at the invective hurled at the heretic. Our ancestors were men, not unlike ourselves, who laughed, and ate, and slept, and made mistakes. In some of the Councels, if I remember my history, there were shouting matches in formal session that almost came to fisticuffs.
These men were not always the somber plaster statues (or if you prefer, somber icons) that we sometimes imagine. They understood that their words would be read and heard and discussed by ordinary people as well as elect scholars and theologians, and so wrote in a manner as to be clear to all.

Yours in Christ,

Joseph

[Owen Jones]

Dear Joseph,

Neither the Fathers nor the Scriptures are expected to be understood by the "average" mind. In the discipline of the early Church, one could not stay for the sermon, let alone the Holy Mysteries, whilst still a catechumin, because the mind had not yet been purified and illumined. The assumption was that the senses must first be transformed in order for the truth to be heard. As St. Paul said, some have received communion and gotten sick. Others have died. The more esoteric theological treatises are accompanied by warnings to the unitiated not to read them. One must first master simplicity and humility and the like ascetic virtues.

The point is not that patristic theology is or should be limited to a scholarly elite, but to a purified and illumined elite.

We should probably all concentrate first on practicing the ten commandments and charity before we spend any time "studying" theology.

This is quite a different question than whether the liturgy should be in the vernacular. Of course it should be!

Owen Jones (Seraphim)

[Monachos.net]

Friends, I have moved Vlad's most recent post, on liturgical language in Romania, to the Liturgical Language - Old and New (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/96/740.html?1019442410) thread in the Liturgy and Liturgical Study topic area. For the sake of clear conversation, let's keep discussion on the issue of language and language styles to that thread, and reserve this Beginning Patristic thread for the issue directly at hand.

With thanks.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Earlier in this discussion, the following comment was made:


Neither the Fathers nor the Scriptures are expected to be understood by the "average" mind.

I think this type of statement needs to be carefully qualified, because there is a certain sense in which it is true, and many senses in which it certainly is not.

It is not true if one takes it to mean that the 'average' person (however this is to be defined) is not to read Scripture or the Fathers. This the Church has never taught. Everybody ought to read the Scriptures, and general Orthodox witness (both internally and externally) has traditionally been of the 'read this; go here' approach, with the missionary handing his people the Scriptures and the Fathers, and building them a Church (see the lives of the great Orthodox missionaries, e.g. Sts Boris, Innocent, for wonderful examples of this 'strategy' in action). Whatever one's spiritual state, it can only be bettered through the witness of the Liturgy (even in the early days, when the un-baptized could only witness a portion of the Liturgy) and the reading of the Church's sacred writings.

The above statement is also not true if one takes it to mean that the Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers contain nothing that cannot be understood except by the most purified and illumined minds. One of the great spiritual powers of these texts is their ability to purify and to illumine: there are messages to be learned at every level of illumination, even the most 'base'. These messages of a more 'outer' or 'basic' sort are emphatically not to be regarded as 'less important' or 'less valid' than the texts' inner messages -- they are valid realities and teachings of a different sort.

However, the above quotation is true if one takes it to mean that, within the Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers, there are deep truths presented, onto which one cannot grasp immediately, but which require the purification and illumination of the Spirit. These are 'inner teachings', if you will, that the 'average' person does not see or comprehend, precisely because he or she has not attained to the necessary level of spiritual understanding -- though this may come, with time, effort, and the grace of God.

It is this commixture of the readily apparent and the mysteriously inner meanings of the writings of the Fathers that makes them such a wonderful blessing for the faithful: whatever one's present state, they contain messages that can be understood, comprehended and life-directing. And whatever one's present state, these same writings also contain truths that are at present 'too great and mysterious for me, O Lord!' -- truths that will only be approached through a continued life of faith and ascesis.

It is precisely for this reason that more people should read them.

XB, Matthew

[Vlad Benea]

Yes, I think Matthew's message is excellent. I was going to write a message about that myself.

I would just like to add that this is, in my oppinion, one of the greatest characteristics of Orthodoxy, as compared to the other religions, the fact that the teachings are not arcane, but rather opened for everybody to be understood, but at their own level. For example, it doesn't matter that an average peasant here in Romania, has basically almost no idea of what the true importance of the Liturgy is, for the Liturgy still "fills" him up with meaning and a religious state. My spiritual father compares it with two glasses. It doesn't matter that one glass is smaller than the other (i mean the heart, in comprehending), what matters is that the Liturgy fills both glasses fully. If it would be otherwise, we would be gnostics, not Orthodox.

It is true though that some of the fathers warn about the impure not to read their works (the example that comes to mind is St. Symeon the New Theologian, in the Prologue to his hymns, warning the not fully purified about being shocked of some statements (which in fact are quite shocking)), but this is mainly for the theology works, the doctrinary ones (I think). But it would be insane for a sinner not to read the Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, or others of his works, based on the reason that he is not pure enough. That is the reason of those homilies: to straighten the sinners, to make them realise their sin and to make them come into repentance. Might I add, they do that pretty well.

Even though, as a last comment, despite the fact that I read the warning of St. Symeon, about the non-pure ones, and I am far far away of even remote pureness, I read his hymns. Though it is true I was not able to understand much of them (with my mind, not to mention with my heart), St. Symeon is one of my dearest saints (though I don't really know why).

Excuse me if I only repeated Matthew's message,
Vlad

[Owen Jones]

Thanks, Mathew, for modifying my statement. I wouldn't want to push it into a gnostic sort of thing, only available to a kind of illuminati -- HOWEVER! -- there is constant reference in the fathers, and particular the desert fathers, to a kind of inner gnosis, without which, basically, you can forget it. And if you look at American protestantism today, the Bible means whatever you want it to mean, whatever you choose to underline. You can almost get an accurate guide to ORthodoxy by going to a graduate of Bob Jones University and asking him to show you the passages in his Bible that he has not underlined.

According to my understanding, in the discipline of the early Church, which is, in some sense, hopefully, still normative, if only for the most rigorous monastics today, one was prohibited from hearing the sermons until one had undergone a fairly rigorous askesis (far more rigorous than anything imaginable today). This was designed to transform our perception and intellection so as to be able to see and hear things as they really are, without demonic influence. This is not something that works magically, or automatically in each and every case. But there is an inner logic to this that, to me, is unassailable.

Today, we tend to assault the Bible and theogogical texts from an egoistic standpoint. We tend to want to grasp control of the text instead of putting ourselves under its command.

[John Wehling]

Christ is Risen!

Owen writes:

"According to my understanding, in the discipline of the early Church, which is, in some sense, hopefully, still normative, if only for the most rigorous monastics today, one was prohibited from hearing the sermons until one had undergone a fairly rigorous ascesis (far more rigorous than anything imaginable today)."

There was, it is true, a period (that was longer or shorter, depending on the Church, the period, individual background, etc.) in which the catechumens had to depart before the homily and the Mystery of the Eucharistic offering. After the catechumen was "illumined" (baptized), however, they were allowed to remain in the liturgy until the end. You are right, then, to highlight this ascetic dimension of being allowed to hear the Gospel and the teaching of the Church (which accompanied the ability to participate in the Mysteries) in the early Church.

At the same time, a quick glimpse into, say, most of St John Chrysostom's homilies, reveals many of the "illumined" (read baptized) being scolded for such vain, worldly pursuits as attending the theatre (a rather lewd extravaganza in those days) and going to the races. On top of these more outward vices where the typical human struggles and sins of hatred, jealousy, rancor, greed, and the lack of concern for the poor and needy. This among the illumined!

My point is, like Matthew's I believe, to highlight the dynamic character of ascetic life, as well as the continuum of knowledge. If we had to achieve the illumination of the saints before reading the gospel or hearing the homily we would never come to it because these things are essential means to that end.

John

[Owen Jones]

Yes, of course, John, and we have St. John Chrysostom's very forgiving Paschal sermon. The problem with technical terminology in the church is that it does not conform to objective standards of measurement. So you cannot "objectively" say that someone is illuminated simply because they have gone through a particular, prescribed ritual process. Not anymore than you can say that someone is saved, simply by being baptized into Orthodoxy. As far as I can tell, there is no absolute guarantee of anything in Orthodox teaching. The question arose from a practical situation -- how would a person arriving at Orthodoxy for the first time, begin a study of the fathers. I recommended beginning with the sermons because at that stage we are simply not ready for the theology, and given the current standards in the Church, we may never be ready for it. It actually can do more harm that good, as in Paul's testimony that some people have received communion who have become sick and some have even died. I'm not trying to be rigorously dogmatic on the point, but I've seen many new converts who attack patristics in the same kind of deformed state of mind that many fundamentalist protestants attack the Bible and it ends up being an obstacle. And I suspect that I have been guilty of this myself. The fathers are read without an ounce of humility.

A consistent point in the fathers, and in the desert fathers, if you get beyond all of the esotericism, is obedience to the commandments, but we want to skip over that part. And there is virtually no parish discipline today, certainly not in America, that reinforces that basic principle. So the liturgy lacks it's true, full power to illuminate. It can't do so magically.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Owen's earlier post was quite interesting. I especially appreciated the following comment:


Today, we tend to assault the Bible and theogogical texts from an egoistic standpoint. We tend to want to grasp control of the text instead of putting ourselves under its command.

This is of course one of the essential differences between much 'Church reading' and 'academic reading' of the Scriptures and the Fathers (though I am personally one to consider that these readings need not be so distinct and separate as they are usually made out to be). Does one's belief/knowledge command the reading of the texts, or do the texts command one's belief and knowledge? Far (far) too much modern 'interpretation' of Scripture, patristic texts, conciliar decrees and other Church writings is driven by a methodology that assumes the contemporary reader knows more of the subject at hand than the author. In certain contexts and examinations, this may in fact be so (e.g., it is perfectly reasonable to assert that a modern reader, having at hand the few texts of Arius that remain, might know more about Arius' views than did one or another of the Fathers of Arius' era, who may never have read a single word by the man, yet still wrote about him); but to move from this context to a belief that one therefore 'knows' the meanings and truths of the Fathers is quite a leap indeed. It is to move the whole heart of their writings to the surface --to the record of detail-- which is important, but only one aspect of their purpose. Even those Fathers who may have misunderstood Arius (and there are several!), were still motivated in their refutations by a belief in a conception of God that is beyond most of us -- of a reality in the nature of the Divinity that is intricate, mystical and difficult to grasp. We may validly critique the historical method, the factual data and so forth adopted by given Fathers in our study, but none of these details invalidates or hinders the essential realities which were the true focus of their attention.

To use Owen's own analogy, we may desire to (and in fact, should) 'grasp onto' the texts from one perspective, for this grasping, examining, studying and struggling with the writings helps us to understand them in their context and historicity. But we must also, very importantly, 'put ourselves under the command' of the texts, in the sense that we must never let our grasping, our scholarly or critical investigation, drive us into a mindset of 'theologizing the Fathers', rather than letting their theology guide us. One tends to find, too, that if the task of reading the Fathers is approached with due humility and guidance, that the active task of grasping after the details, in fact allows one to be commanded and led by the texts in deeper ways than one might ever have imagined.

XB, Matthew

[sinjin smithe]

Hello to all I am new to this board and I very glad that I have found a board such as this. I am Orthodox by birth and have just recently become more interested in learning more about orthodoxy. I am looking for suggestions as where to start reading in the patristics. I have never read any of them before and what is a good place to start for someone who is interested in growing spiritually?

Thank you,
Sinjin

[Moses Anthony]

Sinjin,

This will seem a simplistic answer to a complex question, and actually it is quite simple. To grow spiritually "Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, with all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself".

This is the statement by our Lord and Savior known as the Shema, the complexity comes because of human experience. In other words, there's a bunch of different things which can be done that will help one to grow spiritually. What is right for you can best be determined by your priest, or spiritual father.

aus
Moses

[A. Marinis]

Dear Sinjin,

James is correct in that the base is love of our Lord our God and love for our neighnbour.Without it there can be no spiritual growth - essentially there is nothing.

Your priest or spiritual father indeed would be the best person to help you.

I am also born Orthodox, but my yearn to understand and accept more was when my grandfather passed away. My priest and the lives of the saints helped and guided me, but essentially it is the breaking down of ego and submitting oneself to our Lord.

May the Lord have mercy on us all.

[John Wehling]

Sinjin,

Greetings in Christ. A very similar question was asked here a few months back, and the response of Matthew and a few others was very good. They suggested starting with the scriptures themselves, particularly the gospels, and with the homilies/sermons of the saints and fathers. St John Chrysostom’s homilies are wonderful and very practical, just make sure you get a translation that is readable. Also, I would suggest the Sayings of the Desert Fathers as a fine introduction to Orthodox ascetical life from the maters of that life.

Hope this helps,

John Wehling

[michelmg]

Sinjin,

The fathers of the desert are easy to read, very difficult to apply. A good starting point.
Evagrios Ponticos writes very well.

Saint Isaac the syrian and Saint Macarios the Great too.

Bogoroditsa, mali at nas
Michel Depiesse

[M.C. Steenberg]

The previous conversation on this topic, called 'Beginning Patristics' as mentioned by John in his above post, is available in the Patristics topic here in the discussion community.

INXC, Matthew