Fathers' authority and tradition

[Mina of Alexandria]

dear fr.Mathew and friends,
I know that orthodox church has 5 doctors : Athanasius , cyril of alexandria , Basil , the Chrysostom and Gregory the theologian.
--------------------------------
specifically what is their Authority or situation in tradition?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

dear fr.Mathew and friends,
I know that orthodox church has 5 doctors : Athanasius , cyril of alexandria , Basil , the Chrysostom and Gregory the theologian.
--------------------------------
specifically what is their Authority or situation in tradition?


I'm one of the friends but maybe I can try to answer this question a bit.

The use of the word 'doctor' is a Roman Catholic usage to describe a technical category of saints with a doctrinal authority. Maybe others such as the Anglicans also use this term? I don't know.

In any case the saints you have listed are among the great saints of the Church. Some such as Sts Athanasius, Cyril, Basil & of course Gregory the Theologian are known as great theologians. St John Chrysostom is a great preacher.

But mostly we wouldn't divide our saints too much into categories. Many you have listed were theologians- those who know God and express this- but all of this is based on a life in Christ. Without prayer, asceticism and dying to oneself there is no theology.

The other thing is that for us the saints are immediate. We're not talking about holy men or women who lived so many centuries ago. We're not talking about keeping alive the memory of those who lived so long ago.

We're talking about how all these saints still actually surround us. Once they are part of the life of Christ they never die and they are as real in our Church today as back those many centuries ago. Maybe they're more real though since a person now in Egypt or North America can have an actual experience of these saints. So when we keep the memory of these saints alive, through venerating their icons, asking for their prayers, singing a service to them & reading their holy words we are really acknowledging how the saints still live and surround us with their grace.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

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.

If Matthew will allow me to quote him as an authority, this comment of his seems to say it all.

In Christ

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

Just to clarify that I'm neither an authority nor a father! Following on what Fr Raphael wrote, I do believe there was a discussion here a few months ago on the topic of 'categories' of saints -- which essentially culminated in the 'we haven't really much of that' sentiments Fr Raphael expressed in his post.

INXC, Matthew

[Mina of Alexandria]

dear father Raphael,
After kissing your hands, thanks for this post,
yes, we have a living church , the saints are not far from us ... they live with us in the church which is one as it is the body of Christ.
I thought tha we have an equivalent expression for the catholic expression " Doctor " ... there are many fathers in the church , great theologians ... and from many ages. they are a real wittness on the presence of the holy spirit in the church.
Pray for me father Raphael
in IC XC
Mina Mounir

[John Charmley]

I take Fr. Raphael's well-made points about the role of the saints, but is there a difference here between saints and Fathers? Not all Saints are Fathers; are all Fathers saints? (Clement of Alexandria, for example, who is not a Saint.)

I am always edified by reading St. Isaac the Syrian, but have never quite understood the process by which he became recognised by the EO as a saint; how was that?

St. Cyril of Alexandria is sometimes called 'the seal of the Fathers', and I can see how that came about. Would there be recognised Fathers since then?

In Christ,

John

[Scott Pierson]

I'm not sure that Clement of Alexandria is traditionally held to be a father by the Orthodox Church. Most of the "Church Fathers" who are not recognized as saints are in reality "church fathers" in the mind of scholars and historians only and not in the mind of the Church. I've read more then a few writings for example that call Origen a Church father which is certainly not what the Church holds. Clement of Alexandria was definitely an influential an important person in the early Church.. a real genius as well but I don’t think he is traditionally understood to be a father of the Church. I’m not 100% sure but that’s at least what I’ve read.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Above, Scott wrote:


I'm not sure that Clement of Alexandria is traditionally held to be a father by the Orthodox Church. Most of the "Church Fathers" who are not recognized as saints are in reality "church fathers" in the mind of scholars and historians only and not in the mind of the Church. I've read more then a few writings for example that call Origen a Church father which is certainly not what the Church holds. Clement of Alexandria was definitely an influential an important person in the early Church.. a real genius as well but I don’t think he is traditionally understood to be a father of the Church. I’m not 100% sure but that’s at least what I’ve read.

St Cyril certainly has his place on the Church's calendar as one of the fathers. Indeed, he was called sphragis pateron, 'Seal of the Fathers', in the Church following his death. There is really no question that he is known as a father (including a rich tradition of iconography).

It could certainly be said that he has not traditionally, since around the sixth or seventh century, been a father to whom substantial recourse has been made in theological writing, for various historical reasons. Part of this was due to the belief that his language, without the terminological clarifications that came out of the post-Ephesian / Chalcedonian clarifications, was prone to misinterpretation and problems -- hence it has been more traditional to build on Cyrilline thought as it lays behind Chalcedonian expression, rather than in its own right. Obviously, this has not been the case in non-Chalcedonian churches.

This situation has started to change in recent years, and the richness of Cyril's contribution, which the Church has always affirmed, is being appreciated more widely in both popular piety and scholarly study. But it is still fair to say that Cyril is not, by and large, a 'key father' in most Orthodox theological discussion.

For this reason he is perhaps among the most valuable to read (I would point out that I spend substantial amounts of time with Cyril myself).

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

About St Cyril, Matthew S wrote:


It could certainly be said that he has not traditionally, since around the sixth or seventh century, been a father to whom substantial recourse has been made in theological writing, for various historical reasons. Part of this was due to the belief that his language, without the terminological clarifications that came out of the post-Ephesian / Chalcedonian clarifications, was prone to misinterpretation and problems -- hence it has been more traditional to build on Cyrilline thought as it lays behind Chalcedonian expression, rather than in its own right. Obviously, this has not been the case in non-Chalcedonian churches.

That's fascinating- I knew, as you say, that it has been traditional in our church to build on St Cyril's thought (in seminary we were taught a very strong apologetic in this sense of the phrase, "one incarnate nature..." Remarkable when you think about how he has more Chalcedonian ways of putting things later on. We could have simply ignored the former and concentrated on the latter).

But I didn't know that later on his writings were not made so much use of.

One thing I wonder about- I've also been reading St Cyril for the past few months & love him- he has a way of thinking that I seem to see in our church hymnography. I don't know how to put it clearly but whatever St Cyril addresses he illuminates by placing it into context with multiple reference points. His theology isn't so much analytical but rather an effort to put everything into a larger providential context. This context isn't just implied with him, it's how he explains for example Who Christ is.

I don't know if I'm imagining things- if there is a direct influence on our hymnography or only a similar way of thinking by the hymnographers of our church.

Maybe there's also something very appealing to us in St Cyril's description of Christ. When we explain that the point for St Cyril is how the pre-eternal Logos is always the subject of the Incarnate Christ this misses something until you begin to actually read him. Then you see how St Cyril is portraying a very active Christ in terms of our salvation, of how His submission to humanity through His human nature is something willing & active.

I think this description of Christ has great power to speak especially in regards to the sensibilities of today's world which is very dynamic but yet which has need of actively submitting this to something besides itself.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Scott Pierson]

St Cyril certainly has his place on the Church's calendar as one of the fathers. Indeed, he was called sphragis pateron, 'Seal of the Fathers', in the Church following his death. There is really no question that he is known as a father (including a rich tradition of iconography).

I was talking about Clement of Alexandria not Saint Cyril . I know Saint Cyril is a saint my Church has big icon of him behind the iconostasis on the back wall.

[M.C. Steenberg]

I was talking about Clement of Alexandria not Saint Cyril . I know Saint Cyril is a saint my Church has big icon of him behind the iconostasis on the back wall.

Dear Scott (and others),

This appears to be the greatest evidence to date that the 'I can see fine without my specs' line isn't as true as it once was. Many apologies for the 'robust obfuscation' (a term a good friend once used, which I've always liked, to describe politicians' techniques on radio or television interviews, of responding to a question by addressing one entirely different).

INXC, Matthew

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Elsewhere on this site we have had occasion to discuss the notion of 'development' with relation to Orthodox understanding of theology, and we tended to agree that whilst the Church's understanding of the Faith could develop (the Trinity would be a case in point), we were uneasy and tended to reject anything like Newman's ideas of the development of doctrine. Here I want to raise an associated point to do with the Fathers and our understanding of them.

Western thinking tends, at least since the Enlightenment, towards the idea of progress, which leads to the idea that this generation knows more (and better) than the last one; some of the effects of this are all too apparent, but my purpose here is not to lament the times, but to ask a question related to the Fathers and Tradition.

Reading the Fathers it soon becomes clear that men like Origen and Tertullian actually had at their disposal a vastly greater deposit of Christian writings than have survived until now, and that of their writings, or even of the writings of later Fathers such as St. Cyril of Alexandria, large sections have been lost. That surely means that the Fathers actually, even on a literal level (let alone the spiritual one where it is obviously so) knew far more about the Faith than we do now. This would seem to enhance their authority (if such were either possible or needed) and to point up the importance of the way the Church emphasises Holy Tradition.

I'm sure this thought has struck many of you, but I wondered what your reflections on it might be?

At the very end of his Gospel, St. John himself tells us: [John 21:24-25]


24 This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.


All a reminder to the modern age to show a little due humility against the wisdom of the past.


In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Reading the Fathers it soon becomes clear that men like Origen and Tertullian actually had at their disposal a vastly greater deposit of Christian writings than have survived until now, and that of their writings, or even of the writings of later Fathers such as St. Cyril of Alexandria, large sections have been lost. That surely means that the Fathers actually, even on a literal level (let alone the spiritual one where it is obviously so) knew far more about the Faith than we do now. This would seem to enhance their authority (if such were either possible or needed) and to point up the importance of the way the Church emphasises Holy Tradition.

I'm sure this thought has struck many of you, but I wondered what your reflections on it might be?

At the very end of his Gospel, St. John himself tells us: [John 21:24-25]


All a reminder to the modern age to show a little due humility against the wisdom of the past.


Dear John,

The fullness of the Church's understanding is reflected in Her textual testimony but is not its ultimate foundation or source. This source is the continual guidance of the Holy Spirit within the Church.

Of course to 'guided by the Holy Spirit within the Church' (or other like phrases and ideas) we often add the context of the Apostolic Tradition. This indicates that we are not speaking about something merely arbitrary that can, as you indicate, vary in fundamentals from age to age.

But still something 'solid' like faithfulness to the Apostolic tradition doesn't only mean a reliance on what is to hand, such as texts. These and many more things within the Church from an established piety to liturgics all are a way in which the tradition and guidance of the Church is particularly reflected. But still this is not absolute.

As is often pointed out, for example the authority of Scripture is such within the Church that if somehow every visible manifestation of it and memory of it was to be lost the Church would be able to re-write it if not word for word then idea for idea or revelation for revelation once more.

Thus it is for the texts we have to hand. They certainly help guide us and certainly reflect the tradition of the Church. But if and when these texts disappear then at a time appropriate for this the inspiration behind them reappears.

I think that the appearance of many of these texts in recent times are really miraculous reappearances. They occurred when the need was greatest and people cried out for this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Justin]

I'm curious about the idea that Orthodoxy doesn really divide saints into categories." I always thought that the Orthodox did this more than the Roman Catholics, though with less precision in the actual categorizing. Indeed, one of the first people to say that the Orthodox didn't do this went on to say in his next sentence and such and such fathers were theologians... a category, I believe? There are the Fools for Christ, the Equal to the Apostles, New Martyr, etc. And, probably more relevant to this thread, there are those three men given the title "Theologian": John the Apostle, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Symeon (the New Theologian).

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Justin

I'm not sure what you mean? These are categories of fact. Some saints are theologians, some are martyrs, some are fools for Christ.

This is different from categorising saints to closely by what they might be 'good for'. Certainly when I am praying for mission I pray to British missionary and patron saints. And when I am reading some theological work I will pray to the saint who wrote it.

But I don't think Orthodoxy is so geared up to having saints for tyre punctures, saints for homework problems, saints for employment difficulties etc. as it sometimes seems that some other traditions do.

This is not to say that there are not saints who engaged in medical care who are still called upon when people face illness etc etc. And other examples as well. There is no issue as far as I can see in calling upon a saint who is loved and who is known for having cared about some aspect of life, and is believed to still care for others suffering in such an aspect of their lives.

But I would say that Orthodox categorise saints much less than Roman Catholics. I know one online RC saints list that has listings of saints for every problem, I don't think this is so normal in Orthodoxy. I have my own patrons and I tend to pray to them in all circumstances, otherwise it sounds rather mercenary to be suddenly approaching a saint we have shown no interest in before just because we have some problem they are supposed to be 'good' at fixing.

Peter

[Justin]

This is different from categorising saints to closely by what they might be 'good for'.

That's a good point, that the Orthodox are less prone to categorizing saints in a "If you lose your keys, pray to St. Zita" type of way. Though there are different ways of categorizing where the Orthodox are a bit more like Catholics, like monastics of a solitary type preferring early writings by hermits (a label, a category of sorts) rather than writings from communally oriented saints; or if you wanted to read edifying stories you might go to people called Martyrs. Not exactly the same, but by giving titles, aren't they helping point people into the right direction for their reading and activity, if not so much their prayer? I can now see the point about the Orthodox doing this less (not more) than the Catholics, though.

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Justin

I think that categories are always useful human means of making sense of and organising the world around us.

So we have categories or labels like 'The Desert Fathers', which group together those writers and saints who lived in the desert and taught about spirituality in the 4th-7th centuries. This is a natural human activity.

In this I guess that Orthodoxy is in common with all humans. We have people called scientists, people called dictators, people called soldiers. This is just human.

The difference, as I think you understand, between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy is that Orthodoxy tends not to assign certain saints to particular needs, (though it does occur) and people tend to have a relationship with particular saints through their lives.

I pray, for instance, to St Cyril of Alexandria (I have a relic of his), St Alban (proto-martyr of Britain), St Theodore of Canterbury (who is buried just a few miles from me and is my 'name' saint), various other British saints and some of my own Oriental Orthodox community's saints, especially Severus of Antioch. I don't have a relationship with saints based on 'who is good for what?' Rather these are saints I have prayed too for years and seek to learn from.

Hope this helps your understanding.

Peter