Question of the authority of the Church Fathers [Archive]

View Full Version : Question of the authority of the Church Fathers

M.C. Steenberg

26-06-2006, 09:18 AM

Dear all,

Recently, in another thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=34951#post34951), certain comments have been made with some frequency (forgive the string of multiple quotations, but it will help to bring things together for this new discussion thread):

Therefore it seems better to believe the Holy Gospel as plainly presented than the 4th Century Greek fathers expressed personal opinions filled with the cursed "I" word - who did not claim authority of the Holy Spirit in the matter. The Holy Spirit is accessible to Orthodox believers - even now. Fathers speaking in the authority of the Holy Spirit do not use "I" but rather give God the glory.

Of course that is true - beyond the basic it is possible to posses knowledge without knowing it, it is purely speculation. However, the speculation is based on scientific information that was not known to their age when they were clearly speculating using the "I" word.

That is why the personal speculation ("I" word opinion) [...]

But the fathers were clearly uncertain because they expressed these things rhetorically, used "I" and were inconsistent.

The interesting thing about quoting the Fathers such as St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Basil is that they are clearly using the "I" word and rendering personal opinions.

It seems good to open a conversation on these kinds of sentiments, since they will figure into how one approaches the theology of the Church.

In Orthodoxy, the writings of the fathers are not considered speculative merely on account of writing in the first person. It is not understood as counter-doxological (i.e. 'not giving God the glory') to speak in the first person, for such language can have any number of meanings. It can speak of the fruits of personal experience (in which manner St Paul at times uses it), or as an expression of humility (in which manner Paul again), etc. One must see past the simple question of language; the phrasing of 'I' is not a litmus test.

Further, this whole distinction intrinsically sets up a kind of categorical distinction between the writings of the fathers not between the covers of the two testaments, and the fathers who are. Yet in the Orthodox tradition, there is no definitive distinction here: fathers are fathers, not on account of their writings being in the scriptural collection or not, but on account of their experience of theology. Those fathers whose writings (or a portion of whose writings) are found in the scriptural collection have a special centrality in liturgical worship and familiarity, and they do so because other fathers identified them as of particular value in this regard. But there is no room for the distinction implied in turning from scripture to a writing of a father and say, 'God wrote those words, while men wrote these'.

The doctrine of the Church is based on the articulation of the fathers and mothers of its past and present, as they relate a common yet always personal experience of God. In Orthodoxy in particular, this ongoing community of experience is symbolised in may ways, not least is the fact that the scripture is read in the church, amidst the hymns of other fathers, as part of their one voice. To attempt to reflect on various points of doctrine by drawing a distinction between scripture and the writings of the fathers as 'speculation', forces a divide that is entirely antithetical to the realm of discussion and truth in the Orthodox tradition. It will do nothing but create tremendous problems, and inadvertently deny much of the fundamental theological articulation of the Church, by attempting to read scripture only with reference to scripture - which simpy isn't how that collection is understood to serve the people.

INXC, Matthew

AndyHolland

26-06-2006, 01:59 PM

Fr Raphael Vereshack

26-06-2006, 03:40 PM

Glory to Jesus Christ!

"I" would suggest reading the story of Saint Columba. In it, the "I" word is exposed when used in pride - even for a good thing. The Apostle Paul uses the "I" word, but is quick to give God the Glory in his Holy Epistles.

"Christ Jesus came into the Universe to save sinners of whom I am chief" is approved by all. It certainly applies to me. At least Hitler prompted the invention of the VW bug for example. I am the chief of sinners, and St. Paul is a Saint. One is wise if one appropriates that sentence for themselves and proceeds from the lowest seat in the house.

Jesus uses plurals throughout the Our Father, and concludes by praying to protect us against the evil one.

Singularity is indeed preached against sternly in St. Peter's second Epistle about private interpretation. All of the wisdom that one truly needs is received in Church, because in Church is the true faith taught liturgically. The fathers interpretations are nice - but not always authoritative.

There are times when reading the fathers, where they are bold to claim authority of the Holy Spirit and make recourse to the Holy Spirit. Everything else that is "I" word opinion is fluff - the full truth is experienced in Church. The fathers put the fluff around the substance to protect the substance, but one must discern between the fluff and the substance.

Jesus Christ is Lord - not the fathers. Only Jesus is Master. Only The Father is Father. It is plain in Church, we say Master bless, and the Bishop blesses 'through the Lord and Master Jesus Christ.' To the extent Jesus dwells in him and he in Jesus, we are addressing one Master - Christ Himself.

The same especially of fathers - for there is only one Father. We do not have many fathers - we have ONE FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN. This ought to scare the heck out of fathers and masters, Priests and Bishops. It is foolish to appropriate the title for oneself, one's own person - and yet just as fearful not to. Jesus Christ is Lord. He promised to be with us and is, therefore we call fathers fathers because they are recognized as the dwelling place of the Father, even though like us, they were sinners.

andy holland
sinner

Dear Andy,

This in reply to this post and your reply to my post of yesterday.

For the most part I follow what Matthew says above. "I" and "plurals" and "many fathers" and "Our Father", etc are not at all categories that the Holy Fathers think in nor do they reflect the reality of what the Church is as if thinking we were defending the Sun we then attacked its rays. What then will we be left with?

Usually the very thing we think we are attacking. For if there is supposed to be some sort of enemy "I" which the Holy Fathers represent as opposed to the "plurals" of Christ then what are we really left with but one very big "I" which for their own reason tries to separate those long ago already united by their bond with Christ?

Christ Himself said "I" many times without this being any sort of opposition to His Father or the Holy Spirit. Indeed in opposition to those Jews who precisely were making this argument He proclaims many times that His (which really is no different than "I") Word is said in obedience to His Father & through the Holy Spirit. This same unity indeed also follows for all those united within the One Body of the Church. For each of us is created distinct in person but yet are all united in One Spirit through Christ. Thus to divide what is united is either to not acknowledge the reality of the Church or else to seek to divide it for ones own purposes.

The purpose of our life in the Church therefore is to unite our "I" to Christ and those who faithfully follow Him. If we disown the servants who possess the goods then surely we disown the Master Who granted them.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Tim Grass

26-06-2006, 06:59 PM

The same especially of fathers - for there is only one Father. We do not have many fathers - we have ONE FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN. This ought to scare the heck out of fathers and masters, Priests and Bishops. It is foolish to appropriate the title for oneself, one's own person - and yet just as fearful not to. Jesus Christ is Lord. He promised to be with us and is, therefore we call fathers fathers because they are recognized as the dwelling place of the Father, even though like us, they were sinners.
I think this whole post is basically non-Orthodox.... so there's not much point in debating the question in these terms.

--tim

Fr Aaron Warwick

26-06-2006, 08:01 PM

AndyHolland

26-06-2006, 11:03 PM

Dear Andy,

This in reply to this post and your reply to my post of yesterday.

For the most part I follow what Matthew says above. "I" and "plurals" and "many fathers" and "Our Father", etc are not at all categories that the Holy Fathers think in nor do they reflect the reality of what the Church is as if thinking we were defending the Sun we then attacked its rays. What then will we be left with?

Dear Father,

Father Bless,

Without Christ, we can do nothing! That is all I am saying, albeit stupidly and sinfully as usual.

Usually the very thing we think we are attacking. For if there is supposed to be some sort of enemy "I" which the Holy Fathers represent as opposed to the "plurals" of Christ then what are we really left with but one very big "I" which for their own reason tries to separate those long ago already united by their bond with Christ?

Christ Himself said "I" many times without this being any sort of opposition to His Father or the Holy Spirit. Indeed in opposition to those Jews who precisely were making this argument He proclaims many times that His (which really is no different than "I") Word is said in obedience to His Father & through the Holy Spirit. This same unity indeed also follows for all those united within the One Body of the Church. For each of us is created distinct in person but yet are all united in One Spirit through Christ. Thus to divide what is united is either to not acknowledge the reality of the Church or else to seek to divide it for ones own purposes.

The purpose of our life in the Church therefore is to unite our "I" to Christ and those who faithfully follow Him. If we disown the servants who possess the goods then surely we disown the Master Who granted them.

In Christ- Fr Raphael
I am not advocating disowning anyone, especially the fathers. And I certainly agree on uniting the "I"s to Christ.

However, it is often the case we will express personal opinions based on vain and limited reasoning. We are human with a fallen nature and sinners. Even the fathers had bad days.

When the fathers teach "in my opinion" and "I say", we need to distinguish those teachings for more authoritative teachings where they claim Apostolic authority and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Look carefully, if you would, at the syntax St. John uses in his homoly on this subject on the Gospel of St. Matthew (49 or 50 I believe), and then compare that with his commentary on a Psalm or something. Clearly, there is a difference in wording that indicates he is having heartburn on this subject.

On one hand, he is subject to St. Athanasius who is clearly a great Saint, and on the other, something is clearly gnawing at him that he should phrase this with so many rhetorical questions.

The Blessed Theophylact takes out the questions, and then just blurts out the teaching as if it is authoritative Church teaching, and frankly, that is where the error begins to really become apparent.

An honest man cannot have a God of Truth who lies.

Jesus Christ is Lord - not the fathers. Sometimes the fathers made mistakes. The Church on the other hand, has been consistent in her teaching, and these issues are never touched in Church because frankly, it would sow dischord - which only proves I am a wretched and wicked sinner who should shut up.

andy holland
sinner

AndyHolland

26-06-2006, 11:30 PM

Dear Andy,

I am not sure how you can claim to be Antiochian Orthodox and then make the derogatory statements that have been made regarding the Church Fathers. Throughout all of your derogatory posts, there is a very basic deficiency in understanding the Orthodox Church. Specifically, the posts make a distinction between "the Church," "the Fathers," "the Liturgy," "the Holy Scriptures," etc. that simply does not exist.

I can understand and accept a lack of respect for the Church Fathers from the non-Orthodox, but it is deplorable for an Orthodox Christian to have such a bad attitude towards those who have gone before us, to whom we owe a great debt. I am not sure what exactly you are trying to propose or defend, but you certainly are not doing so in an Orthodox manner. I am interested in knowing your religious background (e.g., are you a "convert" or "cradle" Orthodox, how long have you been Orthodox) so I can better understand from where you are coming. I furthermore ask that you refrain from making bold statements that indicate you are, perhaps, more advanced in your understanding than the Fathers.

Aaron
Dear Aaron,

I am sorry that I have made you angry. I am frequently wrong and my form of convience is one that clearly proceeds from a sinner.

All I know is, Jesus Christ is Lord. Jesus Christ is True. Jesus Christ is without Guile as the CHURCH teaches in the Liturgy.

I have been sorely oppressed by that particular teaching of the blessed Theophylact that took out the rhetorical questions of St. John, and basically said in a tactful way, the Lord lied to shut up His disciples.

The Truth did not and does not lie. The Holy Gospel is true, the Word of the Lord is True, and the Church teaches that the Lord is without guile. Therefore, the teaching of particular fathers on a narrow subject can safely be seen as incorrect.

My faith is a true faith, I do pay attention in Church, and I was completely knocked out by the Blessed Theophylact and later expositions - because I know, as I know the Sun arises in the East and sets in the West, that the Lord is True because the CHURCH says so.

So in my haste, I said let all men be liars.

andy holland
sinner

AndyHolland

26-06-2006, 11:34 PM

I think this whole post is basically non-Orthodox.... so there's not much point in debating the question in these terms.

--tim
Dear Tim,

So the Holy Gospel and the Words of our Lord and savior, that we have but one Father, and call no man Father - are to be ignored and are not Orthodox?

The truth is that the Church teaches in the Liturgy that we have One Father and One Master, and when the master (Bishop) blesses, Jesus is in the Bishop blessing us through the Bishop who is indeed the Master.

andy holland
sinner

Fr Raphael Vereshack

27-06-2006, 12:14 AM

Dear Father,

Father Bless,

The rays of the Sun are Liturgics and the teaching bareheaded in Church. The rays eminate from the Father, from Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, not from men but through men. The light shines through you - but men are neither the source but rather a medium of transmission, affecting the color, but not the heat.

If you build a religion on the authority of fathers, it becomes a religion of fatherless children, hirelings and thieves. There is only one Good shepherd - and when a Church father subordinates himself to allow Jesus Christ to dwell in him, the he becomes THE good Shepherd among us.

Obedience, the Grace of God, and virtues are essential. Abandoning them to appropriate for oneself "father" is dangerous.

Without Christ, we can do nothing!

I am not advocating disowning anyone, especially the fathers. And I certainly agree on uniting the "I"s to Christ.

However, it is often the case we will express personal opinions based on vain and limited reasoning.

Holy Scripture is very sharp and consistent. Saying the Son surely knows is surely a lie when He surely says He does not know. We must therefore forgive those who have offended us, for we have far worse sins.

By holding to these teachings as authoritative, one is placed into a vice of either believing the Church is a liar or Jesus Christ is a liar. Neither of these are true. For the Church teaches the Lord is True and does not Lie, and the Church teaches the Lord is without Guile in our Liturgics. This understanding is the understanding of the Church over all time, accept by what seems right to the Holy Spirit and to us.

Therefore, the fathers as men are sinners; liars - like us a wayward - the same generation in Jesus day, in need of a savior - Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is Lord - not the fathers.

We are never to rebell. However, we can accept only One Good Shepherd, and we can accept only one true Father. This makes theosis all the more needful, a man must truly crucify his passions and put on Christ totally. Yet even when someone does this, like St. Paul they are wise to say, "Christ Jesus came into the Universe to save sinners of whom I am chief" - because they only count their sins continually.

The Gospel is true, let all other men by liars if they dare to impute guile on the Lord that bade us to handle Him, for He is meek and lowly. Meek and lowly men do not lie - ever, for any reason.

andy holland
sinner

Well once again the divisions you are describing between Christ and the Holy Frs do not exist within the Church.

As the Holy Frs so often warn behind all such rejections of what the Church is stands self-will since it involves a willful rejection of the humility and obedience needed to be a member of the Body of the Church.

At this point it could well be asked how rejecting so much of what the Fathers are does not get us to the point of rejecting the saints also. After all most of the Holy Frs are saints. And this is precisely a reflection of the fact that their lives are so much led in that of Christ and that their life is His. The words they write and speak so far from being speculations are reflections of this life.

There is absolutely no way in which we can approach Christ except through His Body. To reject this is a dangerous course indeed for in the fantasy of Christ vs Church what we end up with is us against the Church. And in self-willed fashion isn't this what motivates all of this in the first place?

The strange thing in all of this is that an argument against the supposed individualism of the Fathers ends up relying on individualism of the most extreme kind.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

AndyHolland

27-06-2006, 12:28 AM

Well once again the divisions you are describing between Christ and the Holy Frs do not exist within the Church.

As the Holy Frs so often warn behind all such rejections of what the Church is stands self-will since it involves a willful rejection of the humility and obedience needed to be a member of the Body of the Church.

At this point it could well be asked how rejecting so much of what the Fathers are does not get us to the point of rejecting the saints also. After all most of the Holy Frs are saints. And this is precisely a reflection of the fact that their lives are so much led in that of Christ and that their life is His. The words they write and speak so far from being speculations are reflections of this life.

There is absolutely no way in which we can approach Christ except through His Body. To reject this is a dangerous course indeed for in the fantasy of Christ vs Church what we end up with is us against the Church. And in self-willed fashion isn't this what motivates all of this in the first place?

The strange thing in all of this is that an argument against the supposed individualism of the Fathers ends up relying on individualism of the most extreme kind.

In Christ- Fr Raphael
Yes- the individual upon whom the Church is built is Christ. Are you only reading what you want to read? Without Christ we can do nothing. He is the individual who work we steal as thieves who confess Him.

I just ended a few days ago a funeral of my brother-in-law Priest, whose own brother (my other brother-in-law) is a Pentecostal and stubborn. I told Him that all fathers have The Father dwelling in them and all Masters have The Master dwelling in them - and this we acknowledge. That made a positive impression. The Church Liturgics backed this up because we all sang, "Master Bless" and the Master (Bishop) blessed through 'the one Lord and Master Jesus Christ.'

Yet other fathers he met appropriated the title to themselves. That is extreme individualism and very foolish - but common.

I think we are indeed in violent agreement - that you are not reading what I am writing or more likely, only my pride and wicked sinfulness is coming through this dark www, Vav Vav Vav, 666 internet.

But I am very angry, and must confess that anger, that one would ever dare to impute Guile upon our Lord - when our Lord is without Guile as the Church clearly teaches in Her Liturgical expression - explicitly.

andy holland
sinner

Fr Raphael Vereshack

27-06-2006, 12:52 AM

Dear Aaron,

I am sorry that I have made you angry.

All I know is, Jesus Christ is Lord. Jesus Christ is True. Jesus Christ is without Guile as the CHURCH teaches in the Liturgy.

When the fathers taught personal opinions saying "in my opinion" and "I say" as St. Basil and St. John clearly did on this issue of knowing the hour, then they preached their word, not THE WORD.

At that point they weren't fathers; they were just brothers like the rest of us, fallible, sinful; in desperate need of the Savior. And they knew that.

I suppose I cannot believe the false teaching that our Lord lied, used guile etc... He plainly did not. It is very easy to reconcile the Words of Scripture and the Words of the Church. It is not at all possible to reconcile such words with what the fathers teach on that particular subject, which eventually, by the 13th century boiled down to, Jesus told them He did not know in order to shut up his stupid disciples as St. Theophylact put it - though very tactfully.

That particular teaching is not of the truth. Most other father teachings are of the Truth, but that one is not. If our feet are held to the fire to believe such tripe, then we are indeed lost, and might as well be Protestant. Yet the Protestants rebelled and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, so we must just bless our persecutors and pray.

There is no need at all to say that the Lord surely knew when He said He did not know. That is the issue, and in that narrow personal opinion teaching, many of the fathers were wrong. Not by me, but by the Church that teaches otherwise, always has, always will - without error.

andy holland
sinner

Dear Andy,

If this is the point of all these posts then the best thing is to simply say something like, "I don't understand when the Fathers say such and such." Sometimes it also gets to "I have a hard time with such & such statement of a Holy Fr." But even here we usually give the Father the benefit of the doubt & keep in mind that most often it's us who don't understand. Who knows maybe in a few years after a bit of fasting & prayer and reading the lives of the saints we suddenly get it?

At least this puts us in a position of humility where we aren't putting ourselves above the Fathers as if we're more wise (I think that's what's causing the strongest reactions to your posts). Without humility we'll misunderstand even what we agree with in the Holy Frs (actually come to think of it the danger might be more on this side than with what we disagree with!)

I guess what this all comes down to is the life of the virtues in practice. We put ourselves in a humble position in regards to the Fathers so that we don't end up exalting our own opinions too much. For us their authority is about being humble and listening to those much wiser and surely a lot more holier than we are.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

M.C. Steenberg

27-06-2006, 11:18 AM

Dear Mr Holland, Fr Raphael, Alec and others,

There are times when reading the fathers, where they are bold to claim authority of the Holy Spirit and make recourse to the Holy Spirit. Everything else that is "I" word opinion is fluff - the full truth is experienced in Church. The fathers put the fluff around the substance to protect the substance, but one must discern between the fluff and the substance.

The Orthodox understanding of the receipt of truth in the Church is that it comes through the experience of God, which is an experience to which we are led through the teaching of the fathers. One comes to know and encounter the Lord through the testimony, teaching and instruction of 'those who have gone before', who themselves received the same from those before them. The basic meaning of traditio ('tradition') is 'to hand on': and the body of Christ 'hands on' its receipt and its life continually. It is a living, breathing body that carries forward its existence, not something newly fashioned or newly designed in any age.

The Church provides that means of encounter with Christ, through the fathers. That is a complete statement. It does not need to be, and in fact should not be, extended with 'through the fathers and the scriptures', for the scriptures are writings of the fathers. There is no distinction of category, and it is to no one's prerogative to say 'I shall take those fathers' writings, but not those', the scriptures and not the other testimony, etc.

It also cannot do to say generically that 'the Church' teaches the scriptural truth, or the truth without further qualification. The Church is the body of Christ in the saints, not a thing that can be abstracted from them. Without her fathers and mothers, the Church says, teaches, does and proclaims nothing. As such, the following kind of statement is not as much wrong on point as it is wrong in overall approach:

Jesus Christ is Lord - not the fathers. Sometimes the fathers made mistakes. The Church on the other hand, has been consistent in her teaching

This is to generalise out 'the Church' from the fathers and mothers, the communion of saints, in which the Body of Christ is a living organism in the world. What is 'the Church' that has thus been consistent, if not the fathers in the experience of Christ? There is no such entity, no such reality. The Church is neither an idea nor a conveyance of a message. It is Christ in his saints, present in and for the world. Her teaching is the one truth of Christ (who says 'I am the way, the truth and the life') - a truth that is not a series of postulates that can be written down, but a truth of experience that is given and received, learned and shared, through the fathers, by whom the truth is borne into our lives (hence one aspect of the favoured title, 'The God-Bearing Fathers').

Mistakes.

Some of the above comments and posts have raised the question of the fallibility of the fathers (e.g. 'Sometimes the fathers made mistakes'). This is clearly true. But - and this relates to some recent discussion in another thread - questions of fallibility and infallibility cannot be reduced to simply right and wrong on a factual basis, because Christian truth is not simply a series of factual postulates. Christian truth is a person, Christ, one of the holy Trinity. It can never be (though often is) reduced to a collection of 'truth claims' or statements on reality, whether about man, the cosmos, or God. Truth is itself a mystery, intimately part of the mystery of God. So points of 'factual inaccuracy' are, while not to be dismissed as entirely unimportant, nonetheless not cardinal to the testimony of the truth. This is why the Church has little issue with the fact that even the writings of the fathers in the scriptures are riddled with 'errors' and 'inconsistencies' of this kind - a fact of which Orthodox faithful should neither shy away nor consider at all problematic.

Truth is something beyond this. But there are times, too, when certain fathers apprehend some of the deeper realities of this mystery wrongly, when they misunderstand part of the truth of Christ. There is human finitude and weakness to be remembered here. But mis-apprehending the truth, Christ, has never been absent from the human experience of him. The accounts of the Gospels are lined with the apostles, living in the presence of the Son incarnate, failing to understand or articulate who he is, and what he is doing. The chief of the apostles, St Peter, makes glaring errors. The missionary St Paul believes Christ a false prophet. All but St John view the cross as a defeat. But to each mis-apprehension, there is correction. During his incarnate and resurrected life, Christ often corrects personally. After the ascension, the apostles correct one another. It is never assumed that one should dismiss St Peter or St Paul out of hand, because they at times spoke and taught incorrectly, at times believed incorrectly. They are as human as all others.

It is equally as inappropriate to dismiss other fathers because 'sometimes they made mistakes'. Those mistakes become immensely problematic for us if we read them alone, as be-all-end-all instruction manuals on Christian truth (though here, again, the deepest problem of all is misunderstanding the nature of the truth they seek to proclaim). But just as the apostles had one another for correction, so do the fathers have one another. Here it is possible to speak of the role of the Church collectively in preserving the truth of Christ: not as abstracted away from the teachings of the fathers, but precisely as imbuing them with certainty and safety. It is in the Church, as the Church, that the fathers are living witnesses to the truth.

Ultimately, to say 'the Church is true, but not the fathers', is to deny that there really is a Church. To say 'the scriptures are true, but not the fathers', is to deny that there really are scriptures.

INXC, Matthew

AndyHolland

27-06-2006, 03:11 PM

Dear Andy,

If this is the point of all these posts then the best thing is to simply say something like, "I don't understand when the Fathers say such and such." Sometimes it also gets to "I have a hard time with such & such statement of a Holy Fr." But even here we usually give the Father the benefit of the doubt & keep in mind that most often it's us who don't understand. Who knows maybe in a few years after a bit of fasting & prayer and reading the lives of the saints we suddenly get it?

At least this puts us in a position of humility where we aren't putting ourselves above the Fathers as if we're more wise (I think that's what's causing the strongest reactions to your posts). Without humility we'll misunderstand even what we agree with in the Holy Frs (actually come to think of it the danger might be more on this side than with what we disagree with!)

I guess what this all comes down to is the life of the virtues in practice. We put ourselves in a humble position in regards to the Fathers so that we don't end up exalting our own opinions too much. For us their authority is about being humble and listening to those much wiser and surely a lot more holier than we are.

In Christ- Fr Raphael
Dear Father,

You are correct - and I must admit to much agitation because this seems way too easy to understand, that one can possess knowledge (book or scroll) without opening it.

However, in the fullness of time the fathers are not more Holy than we are.

Every valley shall be exalted, and every hill made low, and the rough places plain. Now if I am cast into hell for my many wicked transgressions, then certainly they are more Holy than me - but if not, as the Lord says, we are all brothers.

andy holland
sinner

Fr Raphael Vereshack

27-06-2006, 03:19 PM

Matthew S. wrote:

Here it is possible to speak of the role of the Church collectively in preserving the truth of Christ: not as abstracted away from the teachings of the fathers, but precisely as imbuing them with certainty and safety. It is in the Church, as the Church, that the fathers are living witnesses to the truth.

Ultimately, to say 'the Church is true, but not the fathers', is to deny that there really is a Church. To say 'the scriptures are true, but not the fathers', is to deny that there really are scriptures.

I think this also inevitably affects and probably in fact springs from how we relate right now to the rest of the Church. The Holy Fathers speak of their experience of Christ as members of the Church; they speak of this experience through the scriptures and also other writings. So none of this can be separated as if we can pick one and reject another.

This applies however also to how we relate to the rest of the Church. If we pick and choose in terms of the Fathers then more than likely we are also doing the same in regards to the living members of the Church right now without fully seeing the problem with this.

St Irenaeus in his Against Heresy after describing the heresy of the Valentinian Gnostics then moves onto a theological/scriptural critique of their heresy. Along with this however he also explains the spiritual roots of the heresy which comes from a self-willed picking & choosing & rejecting of whatever fits in with one's already formed opinion. In famous passages St Irenaeus explains that the heretical method is always to pick & choose whatever one likes from the Church while rejecting its actual way of life.

Here is the warning for all of us since this temptation is open to all regardless of whether it falls into heresy or not. Basically the problem we are talking about here is one of recognizing what the way of life of the Church is and trying to adopt it. Which really means with new heart & mind seeing how Christ works through all of the members of the Church in the sense not of a proclomation of equal rights but in the sense of us humbling ourselves equally before all. It may seem like this has nothing to do with picking or choosing from the Holy Frs but actually it has everything to do with it since what we are really trying to talk about here I think is a sensitivity to the authority of the Holy Spirit within the Church and the way of life needed to become sensitive to this.

These problems arise in part from abstract ideas about the Church rather than its reality. But this in turn I think comes from not yet fully ackowledging what Christ calls us to in regards to the rest of the living members of the Church. Until we begin dying to ourselves we will spin off on our own ideas & feelings about the Church and take these as the reality of the Church.

Lately this seems to have become more of a tendency. This also would be an interesting discussion.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

AndyHolland

27-06-2006, 03:31 PM

Dear Mr Holland, Fr Raphael, Alec and others,

The Orthodox understanding of the receipt of truth in the Church is that it comes through the experience of God, which is an experience to which we are led through the teaching of the fathers. One comes to know and encounter the Lord through the testimony, teaching and instruction of 'those who have gone before', who themselves received the same from those before them. The basic meaning of traditio ('tradition') is 'to hand on': and the body of Christ 'hands on' its receipt and its life continually. It is a living, breathing body that carries forward its existence, not something newly fashioned or newly designed in any age.

The Church provides that means of encounter with Christ, through the fathers. That is a complete statement. It does not need to be, and in fact should not be, extended with 'through the fathers and the scriptures', for the scriptures are writings of the fathers. There is no distinction of category, and it is to no one's prerogative to say 'I shall take those fathers' writings, but not those', the scriptures and not the other testimony, etc.

It also cannot do to say generically that 'the Church' teaches the scriptural truth, or the truth without further qualification. The Church is the body of Christ in the saints, not a thing that can be abstracted from them. Without her fathers and mothers, the Church says, teaches, does and proclaims nothing. As such, the following kind of statement is not as much wrong on point as it is wrong in overall approach:

This is to generalise out 'the Church' from the fathers and mothers, the communion of saints, in which the Body of Christ is a living organism in the world. What is 'the Church' that has thus been consistent, if not the fathers in the experience of Christ? There is no such entity, no such reality. The Church is neither an idea nor a conveyance of a message. It is Christ in his saints, present in and for the world. Her teaching is the one truth of Christ (who says 'I am the way, the truth and the life') - a truth that is not a series of postulates that can be written down, but a truth of experience that is given and received, learned and shared, through the fathers, by whom the truth is borne into our lives (hence one aspect of the favoured title, 'The God-Bearing Fathers').
God-Bearing Fathers. That is precisely, exactly what I have been saying and Holy Scripture bears witness as does the Liturgy. As for the rest, we experience Truth in Church, especially in the Liturgy, and that I have learned through the God-Bearing Fathers.

The God-Bearing Father St. John Chrysostom lammented the fact that people did not adequately study the Bible.

If they did, they would surely understanding, that we indeed have one Teacher, One Father, One Master - and that the well spring of the fathers is the One Teacher, One Father and One Master - and this is precisely what I have been trying to say, though in a language with which perhaps, you are unfamiliar.

Also, through the God-Bearing Father Priest in my local church, he told me privately at times even the fathers are incorrect and made mistakes as you indicate below. And that is true, because even in the subject that prompted this, St. Ambrose take was fundamentally different from that of the Greek Fathers. And St. Peter was publically written down by St. Paul, and St. Paul pretty much bragged about it though quick to give God the Glory in the Holy Epistle - READ IN CHURCH. Yet because I am not quoting from fathers chapter and verse, it is incorrect for me to say anything? Well, perhaps so, that I can accept.

Mistakes.

Some of the above comments and posts have raised the question of the fallibility of the fathers (e.g. 'Sometimes the fathers made mistakes'). This is clearly true. But - and this relates to some recent discussion in another thread - questions of fallibility and infallibility cannot be reduced to simply right and wrong on a factual basis, because Christian truth is not simply a series of factual postulates. Christian truth is a person, Christ, one of the holy Trinity. It can never be (though often is) reduced to a collection of 'truth claims' or statements on reality, whether about man, the cosmos, or God. Truth is itself a mystery, intimately part of the mystery of God. So points of 'factual inaccuracy' are, while not to be dismissed as entirely unimportant, nonetheless not cardinal to the testimony of the truth. This is why the Church has little issue with the fact that even the writings of the fathers in the scriptures are riddled with 'errors' and 'inconsistencies' of this kind - a fact of which Orthodox faithful should neither shy away nor consider at all problematic.
Precisely, which is why the fact that the Church teaches explicitly the Lord is without guile is the truth, while other claims that the Lord acted in guile for the greater good - is false.

However, it is so easily seen as false through comparing Scripture to Scripture, that one wonders how the fathers could make such a mistake?

We live in a time when guile kills people and/or lands them in jail in many types of industries. Perhaps our experience as stupid lay people has led to a point in history where we can no longer afford to be imprecise because the brakes fail, or the wings fall off, or the nuclear reactor explodes.

Maybe guile was needed for base survival even at Constantines court, so it was excusible then - but now it is a formula for Chernobyl.

And since truth is eternal, even in our time there must be truth - even in the fallen world, than in no way can the fallen world be superior to the New Heaven and New Earth the Lord declares.

Truth is something beyond this. But there are times, too, when certain fathers apprehend some of the deeper realities of this mystery wrongly, when they misunderstand part of the truth of Christ. There is human finitude and weakness to be remembered here. But mis-apprehending the truth, Christ, has never been absent from the human experience of him. The accounts of the Gospels are lined with the apostles, living in the presence of the Son incarnate, failing to understand or articulate who he is, and what he is doing. The chief of the apostles, St Peter, makes glaring errors. The missionary St Paul believes Christ a false prophet. All but St John view the cross as a defeat. But to each mis-apprehension, there is correction. During his incarnate and resurrected life, Christ often corrects personally. After the ascension, the apostles correct one another. It is never assumed that one should dismiss St Peter or St Paul out of hand, because they at times spoke and taught incorrectly, at times believed incorrectly. They are as human as all others.
Comparing Gospel to Gospel, and looking at the Holy Icons of Christ with various scrolls (tied) and books (unopened and opened) - it is very easy to apprehend how Christ has lovingly corrected this over the ages.

It is equally as inappropriate to dismiss other fathers because 'sometimes they made mistakes'. Those mistakes become immensely problematic for us if we read them alone, as be-all-end-all instruction manuals on Christian truth (though here, again, the deepest problem of all is misunderstanding the nature of the truth they seek to proclaim). But just as the apostles had one another for correction, so do the fathers have one another. Here it is possible to speak of the role of the Church collectively in preserving the truth of Christ: not as abstracted away from the teachings of the fathers, but precisely as imbuing them with certainty and safety. It is in the Church, as the Church, that the fathers are living witnesses to the truth.
I totally agree - however, we must remember that Jesus also taught we are all brothers. It would be to deny the Holy Mystery to say we do not receive the true light.

Ultimately, to say 'the Church is true, but not the fathers', is to deny that there really is a Church. To say 'the scriptures are true, but not the fathers', is to deny that there really are scriptures.

INXC, Matthew
Putting quotes around 'the Church is true, but not the fathers' seems to be imputing to me that I somehow intimated that - which is not of the truth.

The truth is the fathers are also sinners. When a Father speaks from the Father as God-Bearer, then He speaks the Truth. There is One Teacher - the Lord.

When a father speaks as fred, joe, mack, andy, whatever - opining, "in my opinion" "I say" - he just speaks as a sinner. We might respect him and certainly listen to him, but Heaven forbid we allow such a teaching to become integral to the Church. That is why fathers worship is deadly. We have One Father.

In Church, the Liturgy and the Icons preach the true faith continually.

andy holland
sinner

AndyHolland

27-06-2006, 03:58 PM

Matthew S. wrote:

I think this also inevitably affects and probably in fact springs from how we relate right now to the rest of the Church. The Holy Fathers speak of their experience of Christ as members of the Church; they speak of this experience through the scriptures and also other writings. So none of this can be separated as if we can pick one and reject another.

This applies however also to how we relate to the rest of the Church. If we pick and choose in terms of the Fathers then more than likely we are also doing the same in regards to the living members of the Church right now without fully seeing the problem with this.

St Irenaeus in his Against Heresy after describing the heresy of the Valentinian Gnostics then moves onto a theological/scriptural critique of their heresy. Along with this however he also explains the spiritual roots of the heresy which comes from a self-willed picking & choosing & rejecting of whatever fits in with one's already formed opinion. In famous passages St Irenaeus explains that the heretical method is always to pick & choose whatever one likes from the Church while rejecting its actual way of life.

Here is the warning for all of us since this temptation is open to all regardless of whether it falls into heresy or not. Basically the problem we are talking about here is one of recognizing what the way of life of the Church is and trying to adopt it. Which really means with new heart & mind seeing how Christ works through all of the members of the Church in the sense not of a proclomation of equal rights but in the sense of us humbling ourselves equally before all. It may seem like this has nothing to do with picking or choosing from the Holy Frs but actually it has everything to do with it since what we are really trying to talk about here I think is a sensitivity to the authority of the Holy Spirit within the Church and the way of life needed to become sensitive to this.

These problems arise in part from abstract ideas about the Church rather than its reality. But this in turn I think comes from not yet fully ackowledging what Christ calls us to in regards to the rest of the living members of the Church. Until we begin dying to ourselves we will spin off on our own ideas & feelings about the Church and take these as the reality of the Church.

Lately this seems to have become more of a tendency. This also would be an interesting discussion.

In Christ- Fr Raphael
I notice in cradle Orthodox Churches most are sitting down - doing nothing, while the Priest speaks and the small choir sings. Also, there is a lack of familiarity with Holy Scripture.

Maybe, the sheep are discouraged from being sheep, so they just wander about aimlessly. Sheep are indeed stupid, but we are called to be rational sheep.

andy holland
sinner

Fr Aaron Warwick

27-06-2006, 05:13 PM

Dear Andy,

Please do not worry that you have angered me. I am not angered, just shocked. Fr Raphael has expressed my sentiments with regard to how we should approach not only the Fathers, but theology in general (i.e. with humility). I hope that you take heed to his advice.

Aaron

Tim Grass

27-06-2006, 06:13 PM

When a father speaks as fred, joe, mack, andy, whatever - opining, "in my opinion" "I say" - he just speaks as a sinner. We might respect him and certainly listen to him, but Heaven forbid we allow such a teaching to become integral to the Church.
This just isn't Orthodoxy.... no matter how you qualify it. It's Protestantism. Not to slam my Protestant friends.... but Orthodoxy isn't Protestantism, any more than these comments are Orthodox.

I don't mean to be mean with this, but it doesn't seem like there's a lot of point in waffling about things. This isn't how Orthodoxy understands the Fathers. If it's how you do, or want to, then all the words in the dictionary aren't going to sway you.... but your words aren't going to change the minds of 2,000 years of living church, either, no matter how many strange distinctions between "I" and in the truth and speculation and proclamation and when someone speaks of the truth and when they speak as "just a sinner" you draw to try to justify it. It's just not an Orthodox position.

--tim

AndyHolland

28-06-2006, 12:11 AM

AndyHolland

28-06-2006, 12:13 AM

This just isn't Orthodoxy.... no matter how you qualify it. It's Protestantism. Not to slam my Protestant friends.... but Orthodoxy isn't Protestantism, any more than these comments are Orthodox.

I don't mean to be mean with this, but it doesn't seem like there's a lot of point in waffling about things. This isn't how Orthodoxy understands the Fathers. If it's how you do, or want to, then all the words in the dictionary aren't going to sway you.... but your words aren't going to change the minds of 2,000 years of living church, either, no matter how many strange distinctions between "I" and in the truth and speculation and proclamation and when someone speaks of the truth and when they speak as "just a sinner" you draw to try to justify it. It's just not an Orthodox position.

--tim
OK - its not Orthodox. If I have to choose, as some would demand, I would rather be unorthodox and faithful than Orthodox and unfaithful.

andy holland
sinner

AndyHolland

28-06-2006, 12:23 AM

...While You, O Lord, are filling my home with Your life-creating breath, I always forget to ask which is more important -- faith or works? As soon as I offend You and feel abandoned by You, I angrily enter into people's discussions, and support one side or the other.

For without You I am like a weather vane on a chimney that rattles in the direction of the wind. When the wind of faith rises in my soul, I stand with those who have abandoned works and championed faith; when the wind of activity rises in my soul, I support the side of those who have abandoned faith and championed works...

I suppose I came from the faith camp as a convert. But taking the advice of the good Saint who suffered in Dachau among other places, I should just shut my stupid mouth!

Thank you all, God bless you all,

andy holland
sinner

M.C. Steenberg

28-06-2006, 12:32 AM

Just a few comments in response to some specific back-and-forth (I don't do this often, but once in a while...):

If they did [i.e. if more people read the scriptures], they would surely understanding, that we indeed have one Teacher, One Father, One Master - and that the well spring of the fathers is the One Teacher, One Father and One Master - and this is precisely what I have been trying to say, though in a language with which perhaps, you are unfamiliar.

I don't think your point or your means of expressing it have eluded me (though one never knows for certain); it's rather a matter of my not feeling it is an accurate representation of Orthodox thought. I do not in fact believe we're saying the same thing, in the end. To draw the distinction between the 'One Teacher' who is Christ, and the teachers who convey his truth, is useful, perhaps, on a kind of ontological or anthropological level, perhaps - though this is quite clear. It is not useful, or accurate, to draw the distinction as indicating that real conveyance of truth happens only when a father speaks not his own word, but somehow directly that of the Teacher, Christ. The fathers are not merely conduits through which teaching passes, for whom any injection of 'I' is an interference with that transmission. They are themselves persons in encounter, whom we encounter, and our encounter with them as persons is part of our encounter with Christ. This must include the 'I' of who they are and think as persons; in fact, that personal reality is critical. It is the 'I' that the father speaks that is capital to his encounter with Christ, and his conveyance of it to us. 'I' is not the indicator of speculation, nor sign that it is the word of 'just a sinner' who then speaks, rather than God who may speak through him when the 'I' is silent. No. We cannot understand the fathers this way, for ultimately it debases our understanding of persons and relationship and truth.

Comparing Gospel to Gospel, and looking at the Holy Icons of Christ with various scrolls (tied) and books (unopened and opened) - it is very easy to apprehend how Christ has lovingly corrected this over the ages.

'Comparing Gospel to Gospel', if it means comparing one Gospel text to another, or to all the others, cannot be our method for seeing the full truth of Christ's acts. He is not trapped in those books, and who he is is not defined by them.

I do not define a rose by looking only at the rose. It is in the whole of creation that the rose is more wonderfully known.

However, we must remember that Jesus also taught we are all brothers. It would be to deny the Holy Mystery to say we do not receive the true light.

I don't see where this remark has come from, since I do not think anyone in the thread has suggested otherwise.

Putting quotes around 'the Church is true, but not the fathers' seems to be imputing to me that I somehow intimated that - which is not of the truth.

I'm sorry if this is how the paragraph read to you; it was not my intention. I was making claims that I felt summarised my point in the text. When we quote people here in the Discussion Community, you'll usually note it easily from the quotation boxes used to mark off quoted text.

The truth is the fathers are also sinners. When a Father speaks from the Father as God-Bearer, then He speaks the Truth. There is One Teacher - the Lord.

When a father speaks as fred, joe, mack, andy, whatever - opining, "in my opinion" "I say" - he just speaks as a sinner. We might respect him and certainly listen to him, but Heaven forbid we allow such a teaching to become integral to the Church. That is why fathers worship is deadly. We have One Father.

I think we've here a series of comments that makes the point I was trying to emphasise earlier. This is not a feasible way to interpret the Church's understanding of her patristic heritage, nor her her ongoing life in the fathers, mothers and saints.

When a saint or father speaks, he speaks always as sinner and saint. There are no key words to indicate which mode he may be using, for there are not modes. The word 'I' in particular can never be seen this way. The father must use 'I', else he denies the reality of his person. We must accept and embrace that whole person as the father, as the saint. It is this 'I' that is the father of the Church.

INXC, Matthew

Eleftheria

29-06-2006, 12:12 PM

I notice in cradle Orthodox Churches most are sitting down - doing nothing, while the Priest speaks and the small choir sings.

This particular sentence really sticks out. Have you ever sat beside an elderly cradle Orthodox? Listen carefully. Even when there are no books to follow along during the Liturgy, you can hear them softly singing or humming along.

We may appear to be 'doing nothing', but that is an assumption. Appearances are of course, deceiving. One of my sisters-in-law once told me that the best place to look when in church, when there are no books to follow along with, is down...praying ceaselessly all the while...whether that prayer is simply following the liturgy or the Jesus prayer. Prayer is probably the best possible way to keep those assumptions out of our thoughts.

In Christ,

Eleftheria

Matthew Panchisin

29-06-2006, 02:35 PM

Dear Andy,

One could also have noticed that in cradle Orthodox Churches, Russia in this century comes foremost to mind here along with a long history of such "doing nothings" throughout the cradle Orthodox Churches, many had not been sitting down doing nothing. We can see that they shed their blood for what they truly believe while the Priest didn't speak and the largest choir sang. Those same Orthodox Christians that may have appeared to some as doing nothing actually knew faith and works for sure, thanks be to God.

Now the good news for modern man is that the relationship of Truth and the "I" of the fathers remains and is actually well known cradle Orthodox Churches. It seems to me to be a very good relationship. It is interesting to note the source of translation of relationships and how understanding words effect our understandings of the Word, the Church and so many relationships.

I sure hope that Dr. Steenberg and others have taken the opportunity to cease the moments by providing much more patristic commentary in the soon to be released (OT) Orthodox Study Bible. It really would be quite helpful to many of us.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

M. Markewich

07-07-2006, 05:39 AM

Hello all,

First, I wanted to respond to what you said, Mr. Holland, about no one being a real father but God alone. If I really understand what you're saying, I disagree with you. It seems you are saying that we call people 'father' when they represent God. I believe this is false, because I don't believe the words He said about this should be taken literally. We can see this in the example of the apostles. Paul said,

I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I became in my imprisonment.

But you know Timothy's proven worth, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel.

He identified himself as "father" in both those verses. In my opinion, Jesus wasn't against these actual titles, but what they meant. This itself is implied by the context of that passage,

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you--but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.

Jesus' problem seems to be how the Pharisees love these titles, and their ministry is all about being praised by others. So Jesus was saying, "Don't be like them," not "Don't use these titles!" Otherwise, I shouldn't call my own father "father". And if you really want to take it literally, then it would be ok, however, for me to call him "Pops", "Dad", "Daddy". I think that it's fine to call a priest "father", which undoubtedly comes from the same Jewish tradition Jesus was talking about (students called rabbis "father" and "master"). It's the intention that matters, not the titles.

Another example of this is when Jesus said,

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.

Of course I like the versions better which say "raca", not "insults"... but anyway, if you take this literally, then Jesus too is liable to the hell of fire. He said whoever says "You fool" is liable, and since He also said "You fool", He is liable to Hell. There are other examples in the Bible, too, where God says "fool". (Luk 12:20) Now none of us believe Jesus or the Father sinned (hopefully), so again, a literal interpretation of what Jesus says causes some problems.

Of course, if I misunderstood what you meant, then I just wasted a whooole lot of space! Oops.

This thread also got me curious about something else. When I approach the Fathers, I approach them largely the same way I do the Bible. I try to think, "How should I take into account their culture? Are there some 'contradictions' that are actually just evidence of my ignorance of what the author meant (such as, a saying that was known during his time and not my own)?" For example, today I was reading something on the OCA site, about Sisoes the Great:

Asked by the monks whether one year is sufficient for repentance if a brother sins, Abba Sisoes said, "I trust in the mercy of God that if such a man repents with all his heart, then God will accept his repentance in three days."

If we tried to take this Father at exactly what he said, we'd see, "Oh! I guess it will take up to three days! So, does that mean to the minute? To the second? Is there any leeway?" Nooooo, the point was missed. Saint Sisoes was saying it can be much more instant than a year. Another thought I had was that He was referring to the three days in the tomb finishing with the Resurrection. The same line of though is present with Jesus saying, "Forgive 7 times 70 times". So should that be my limit? No, of course not, He is just saying, "Go above and beyond seven times".

Anyway, just as with the Bible, I expect some errors on the little details. Sometimes I see a factual error (Justin, I believe, supported the idea of a literal future thousand year reign). But these people experienced a life with God, and they are valuable for laying down how we can do it.

So my question is, is my approach to the Fathers an Orthodox one, or am I taking Protestant baggage?

John Charmley

24-03-2007, 03:22 PM

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Always reluctant to start up a new thread, it seemed to me that the topic concerning me might be usefully canvassed here, since it is to do with the authority of the Fathers.

I was struck, reading the Penguin edition of Early Christian Writings by Professor Louth's comments that most of the texts in his volume were unknown to most of the Church from around the 5th to around the 17th centuries, and that most of them have only become 'known' in the last century and a half.

That has set off a series of questions to which I hope answers might be found here.

Professor Louth is an academic of some distinction, which made me hold back on my first reaction, which is my first question:
1. Is this simply a western, Protestant view; how were the memories of these texts kept alive elsewhere?
I was struck by the fact that once 'discovered' (i.e. known in the West) versions of them 'turned up' in Syriac and Coptic monasteries; which set me wondering whether the Oriental (and perhaps the Eastern) Orthodox Churches had always preserved the traditions of these Fathers as an active part of their teaching? Was Professor Louth's comment simply a sign that even the most distinguished western academics can, off-guard, assume that if the west didn't know about it, no one else did?

The second question goes back to a comment made earlier in this thread by Matthew Steenberg:

The Orthodox understanding of the receipt of truth in the Church is that it comes through the experience of God, which is an experience to which we are led through the teaching of the fathers. One comes to know and encounter the Lord through the testimony, teaching and instruction of 'those who have gone before', who themselves received the same from those before them. The basic meaning of traditio ('tradition') is 'to hand on': and the body of Christ 'hands on' its receipt and its life continually. It is a living, breathing body that carries forward its existence, not something newly fashioned or newly designed in any age.

2. How was that 'tradition' actually handed on?
I have tended to assume that the tradition of the Fathers was handed on in a way that makes a palimpsest, in which their words are incorporated into our consciousness through what the Church teaches; but is that so?

The final question follows from this on a broader front:
3. How do we arrive at the definition of 'Fathers' that we see, in, for example, the 38 volume edition in 3 series?
The invaluable and indefatigable Roger Pearse provides, in his 'Additional Texts' some Fathers who were missed out altogether. Quite why St. Cyril of Alexandria was not thought worthy of inclusion in the 38 volume edition may, of course, say more about the state of patristic scholarship at that time than it does about anything else.

I don't think we have quite dealt with questions about the formation, definition and dissemination of the works of the Fathers in this way; I fear the questions show how much more reading I need to do, but any hints, suggestions, or answers, would be much appreciated.

In Christ,

John

Andrew

24-03-2007, 05:34 PM

This is explained by Saint Silouan in Elder Sophrony's biography of him... the dogmatic consciousness of all the saints, including things within Holy Traditiion like the Scriptures, could be rewritten if "lost" because the same experience of communion with God can be entered into today. It doesn't always matter if a text is known - what the text describes is within the heart of Orthodoxy, and comes out in different ways at different times, but is always the same in essence. The West seems to be preoccupied with texts and their influence, instead of seeing the experience that all the texts point towards.

Also, I am very wary of western travellers "discovering" ancient manuscripts in monasteries. I think most of the time they were simply stolen by the academics. But anyways...

Rick H.

24-03-2007, 05:53 PM

I think most of the time they were simply stolen by the academics.

Yes! This is true. You have to watch those miserable academics like a hawk, or they will steal you blind everytime! :) In fact, I suspect they are the ones who robbed me of my yard gnome just this past week. ;)

John Charmley

25-03-2007, 11:27 PM

... the dogmatic consciousness of all the saints, including things within Holy Tradition like the Scriptures, could be rewritten if "lost" because the same experience of communion with God can be entered into today. It doesn't always matter if a text is known - what the text describes is within the heart of Orthodoxy, and comes out in different ways at different times, but is always the same in essence. The West seems to be preoccupied with texts and their influence, instead of seeing the experience that all the texts point towards.

Also, I am very wary of western travellers "discovering" ancient manuscripts in monasteries. I think most of the time they were simply stolen by the academics. But anyways...

Dear Andrew,

Thanks for this; I tend to agree with your last point, and was most amused by Rick.

It isn't, however, so much the physical appropriation of texts, but more the diffusion of the 'essence' of them, which was exercising me. Professor Louth's comments about the texts being 'unknown' may apply to the West; it may also apply to the East in some cases; in the cases he mentions it clearly did not apply in Egypt or Syria where not only the texts, but their essence, was clearly diffused.

The process of diffusion of texts is an interesting one, and need not betoken a western obsession with texts as such; although I would add that I am not sure that the distinction between texts, their influence, and the experience they might betoken can be drawn quite as clearly as your interesting answer might be taken to imply.

If one takes, for example, St. Isaac the Syrian, most of what both Eastern Orthodox and the West mean when they talk about him comes from a western recension which comes via a Syrian (Non-Chalcedonian) reworking of his works. It was from this version that the Greek translations of the late eight or early ninth centuries were made in Palestine; four homilies by John of Dalyatha were added, as was Philoxenus of Mabbug's The epistle of Symeon. It was from this version that the Slavic translations of the fourteenth century were made, and it was from that which many more came.

Thus, the text both the East and the West is familiar with is the work of a bishop in the Church of the East (can we, perhaps, here, avoid the question of whether St. Isaac was or was not a Nestorian - that has been done interestingly here in the threads which carry his name), worked through a western Syrian recension reworked by Eastern Orthodox Greek speaking monks; or, as Bishop Hilarion puts it with such pith:

for ten centuries the world has known an 'improved' Isaac, turned from a 'Nestorian' into a 'monophysite' and then from a 'monophysite' into 'Orthodox'
The Eastern recension, in Syriac, has always been known in the Syrian and 'Assyrian' tradition, and reflects the original text of St. Isaac's words rather more accurately.

But there is a second part to his writings, which has only recently been published, and which adds greatly to our understanding of St. Isaac's teaching.

Now, plainly, whilst both East and West, like the Oriental Orthodox, revere St. Isaac as a Holy Father, the latter have kept a fuller tradition of his teachings than the former, who have relied upon the version produced by the process described above.

Does any of it matter? Well, in a sense, that was the purpose of my initial revival of this thread. I am inclined to agree with your formulation, that the essence of the texts becomes part of the wider teaching and tradition of the Church, and that whether we know their physical content is less important; but, of course, if their full physical content is not known, then some parts of the texts have not been absorbed into the tradition.

If this did not matter, there would, perhaps, be little point in editing and producing series of patristic texts; which is not, I suspect, a point of view that lends itself to the purpose of this site.

Or so it may seem.

In Christ,

John