Frelias wrote:Following the Holy Fathers was usual in the Ancient Church to introduce doctrinal statements by phrases like this. The great Decree of Chalcedon begins precisely with these very words. The Seventh Ecumenical Council introduces its decision concerning the Holy Icons even in a more explicit and elaborate way: following the Divinely inspired teaching of our Holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church (Denzinger 302). Obviously, it was more than just an appeal to "antiquity.” Indeed, the Church always stresses the identity of her faith throughout the ages. This identity and permanence, from Apostolic times, is indeed the most conspicuous token and sign of right faith. In the famous phrase of Vincent of Lerins, in ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est (Commonitorium c. 2-3). However, "antiquity" by itself is not yet an adequate proof of the true faith. Archaic formulas can be utterly misleading. Vincent himself was well aware of that. Old customs as such do not guarantee the truth. As St. Cyprian put it, antiquitas sine veritate vetustas erroris est (Epist. 74). And again: Dominus, Ego sum, inquit, veritas. Non dixit, Ego sum consuetudo (Sententiae episcoporum numero 87, c. 30). The true tradition is only the tradition of truth, traditio veritatis. And this "true tradition," according to St. Irenaeus, is grounded in, and guaranteed by, that charisma veritatis certum, which has been deposited from the very beginning in the Church and preserved in the uninterrupted succession of Apostolic ministry: qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum acceperunt (Adv. haereses IV. 40. 2). Thus, "tradition" in the Church is not merely the continuity of human memory the permanence of rites and habits. Ultimately, "'tradition" is the continuity of divine assistance, the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit. The Church is not bound by "the letter.” She is constantly moved forth by "the spirit.” The same Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, which "spake through the Prophets," which guided the Apostles, which illumined the Evangelists, is still abiding in the Church, and guides her into the fuller understanding of the divine truth, from glory to glory.
And my point is still that Apostolic witness and abiding presence of the Holy Spirit of Truth is being hijacked by those claiming this for "the Fathers" unconditionally, as you continue to do in the above.
Quoting "the Fathers" extolling "the Fathers" is a circular argument, it proves nothing for you while it bolsters my argument that "the Fathers" and their patristic supporters have grabbed for themselves an authority not given them by Christ, as Bishop Kassitos reminds. But further, and more worrying than simple egotism of claiming authority over the Church, by associating "this "true tradition," according to St. Irenaeus, is grounded in, and guaranteed by, that charisma veritatis certum, which has been deposited from the very beginning in the Church and preserved in the uninterrupted succession of Apostolic ministry"", to "the Fathers" regardless of the times "the Fathers" contradict Christ, the deposit of Truth is compromised. In such cases wherever Christ's teaching has been changed, "the Fathers" cannot be said to be preserving the Apostolic ministry of the Church.
I'll make this point again - Apostolic Witness is the authority of both male and female Apostles, we are not the One Holy Orthodox Catholic and Fathers Church. And I'll add a reminder that the only authority in the Church is Christ. Who according to some "the Fathers" would be classed as a Judaiser. So what should we make of one such who was not only particularly golden mouthed in his invective against Jews like Christ, but who also advocated the use of violence, directly contradicting Christ's teaching on the subject?:
"I desire to ask one favor of you all... which is, that you will correct on my behalf the blasphemers of this city. And should you hear anyone in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God; go up to him and rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so. Smite him on the face, strike his mouth, sanctify thy hand with the blow." [Homilies on the Statues 1.32, quoting from the translation in the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, first series, v.9, p.343]
Do you think this an example of the the Church being led by the Holy Spirit in truth and glory? It this the great Patristic Mind of the Orthodox Church the lesser oiks like myself daren't question?
Code: Select all
[quote]Following the Holy Fathers is not a reference to abstract tradition, to formulas and propositions. It is primarily an appeal to persons, to holy witnesses. The witness of the Fathers belongs, integrally and intrinsically, to the very structure of the Orthodox faith. The Church is equally committed to the kerygma of the Apostles and to the dogmata of the Fathers. Both belong together inseparably. The Church is indeed "Apostolic.” But the Church is also "Patristic.” And only by being "Patristic" is the Church continuously "Apostolic.” The Fathers testify to the Apostolicity of the tradition. There are two basic stages in the proclamation of the Christian faith. Our simple faith had to acquire composition. There was an inner urge, an inner logic, an internal necessity, in this transition from kerygma to dogma. Indeed, the dogmata of the Fathers are essentially the same "simple" kerygma, which had been once delivered and deposited by the Apostles, once, for ever. But now it is this very kerygma—properly articulated and developed into a consistent body of correlated testimonies. The apostolic preaching is not only kept in the Church: it lives in the Church, as a depositum juvenescens, in the phrase of St. Irenaeus. In this sense, the teaching of the Fathers is a permanent category of Christian faith, a constant and ultimate measure or criterion of right belief. In this sense, again, Fathers are not merely witnesses of the old faith, testes antiquitatis, but, above all and primarily, witnesses of the true faith, testes veritatis. Accordingly, our contemporary appeal to the Fathers is much more than a historical reference—to the past. "The mind of the Fathers" is an intrinsic term of reference in Orthodox theology, no less than the word of the Holy Writ, and indeed never separated from it. The Fathers themselves were always servants of the Word, and their theology was intrinsically exegetical. Thus, as has been well said recently, "the Catholic Church of all ages is not merely a child of the Church of the Fathers, but she is and remains the Church of the Fathers.” [/quote]
Florovsky's "the mind of the Fathers"? When did the Mind of Christ become that? So now we have the "the Fathers" as the Head of the Church? How does this differ from papism in replacing Christ? Florovsky also said that Chrysostom never advocated violence. So wrong on two counts here.
So it's the Fathers we worship?
Have you no conception of the heresy you proclaim here in saying the Body of Christ, our Lord and our God, is the child of the Fathers?
Code: Select all
[quote]The main distinctive mark of Patristic theology was its "existential" character. The Fathers theologized, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus put it, "in the manner of the Apostles, and not in that of Aristotle," alieutikos ouk aristotelikos (Hom. XXIII. 12). Their teaching was still a "message," a kerygma. Their theology was still a "kerygmatic theology," even when it was logically arranged and corroborated by intellectual arguments. The ultimate reference was still to faith, to spiritual comprehension. It is enough to mention in this connection the names of St. Athanasios, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Maximus the Confessor. Their theology was a witness. Apart from the life in Christ theology carries no conviction, and, if separated from the life of faith, theology may easily degenerate into empty dialectics, a vain polylogia, without any spiritual consequence. Patristic theology was rooted in the decisive commitment of faith. It was not just a self-explanatory "discipline," which could be presented argumentatively, i.e., aristotelikos, without a prior spiritual engagement. This theology could only be "preached," or "proclaimed," and not be simply "taught" in a school-manner; "preached" from the pulpit, proclaimed also in the word of prayer and in sacred rites, and indeed manifested in the total structure of Christian life. Theology of this kind can never be separated from the life of prayer and from the practice of virtue. "The climax of purity is the beginning of theology." in the phrase of St. John Climakos (Scala Paradisi, grade 30). On the other hand, theology is always, as it were, no more than "propaideutic," since its ultimate aim and purpose are to bear witness to the Mystery of the Living God, in word and in deed. "Theology" is not an aim in itself. It is always but a way. Theology presents no more than an "intellectual contour" of the revealed truth, a "noetic" testimony to it. Only in an act of faith is this contour filled with living content. Yet, the "contour" is also indispensable. Christological formulas are actually meaningful only for the faithful, for those who have encountered the Living Christ, and have acknowledged Him as God and Savior, for those who are dwelling by faith in Him, in His Body, the Church. In this sense, theology is never a self-explanatory discipline. It appeals constantly to the vision of faith. "'What we have seen and have heard, we announce to you.” Apart from this "announcement" theological formularies are of no consequence. For the same reason these formulas should never be taken out of their spiritual context.[/quote]
These arguments for "the Fathers" as a replacement for the Apostolic Witness of the Church is an example of the selective reasoning you caution against, removed as it is from the perspective of true Apostolic witness.
It is utterly misleading to single out certain propositions, dogmatic or doctrinal, and to abstract them from the total perspective in which only they are meaningful and valid. It is a dangerous habit just to handle "quotations" from the Fathers and even from the Scripture, outside of the total structure of faith, in which only they are truly alive.
Such as "patristic"..?
"To follow the Fathers" does not mean simply to quote their sentences. It means to acquire their mind, their phronema. The Orthodox Church claims to have preserved this mind and to have theologized ad mentem Patrum.
The Orthodox Church cannot make such a claim by including "Fathers" who contradict the truth of Christ. A theologian in the Orthodox Church is one who knows God through personal experience, we are all called to be that, it is the aim of the Church - to be one with Christ.
Code: Select all
[quote]At this very point a major doubt may be raised. The name of "Church Fathers" is normally restricted to the teachers of the Ancient Church. And it is currently assumed that their authority, if recognized at all, depended upon their “antiquity," i.e., upon their comparative chronological nearness to the "Primitive Church," to the initial or Apostolic "Age" of Christian history. Now, already St. Jerome felt himself constrained to contest this contention: the Spirit breathes indeed in all ages. Indeed, there was no decrease in "authority" and no decrease in the immediacy of spiritual knowledge, in the course of Church History—of course, always under the control of the primary witness and revelation. Unfortunately, the scheme of "decrease," if not of a flagrant "decay," has become one of the habitual schemes of historical thinking. It is widely assumed, consciously or subconsciously, that the early Church was, as it were, closer to the spring of truth. In the order of time, of course, it is obvious and true. But does it mean that the Early Church actually knew and understood the mystery of the Revelation, as it were, "better" and "fuller" than all subsequent ages, so that nothing but "repetition" has been left to the "ages to come"? Indeed, as an admission of our own inadequacy and failure, as an act of humble self-criticism, an exaltation of the past may be sound and healthy. But it is dangerous to make of it the starting point of our theology of Church History, or even of our theology of the Church. It is widely assumed that the "age of the Fathers" had ended, and accordingly should be regarded simply as an "ancient formation," archaic and obsolete. The limit of the "patristic age" is variously defined. It is usual to regard St. John of Damascus as "the last Father" in the East, and St. Gregory the Great or Isidor of Seville as the last in the West. This habit has been challenged more than once. For instance, should not St. Theodore of Studium be counted among the Fathers? In the West, already Mabillon suggested that Bernard of Clairvaux, the Doctor Mellifluus, was actually "the last of the Fathers, and surely not unequal to the earlier ones.” On the other hand, it can be contended that "the Age of the Fathers" has actually come to its end much earlier than even St. John of Damascus. It is enough simply to recall the famous formula of the Consensus quinquesaecularis which restricted the "authoritative" period of Church History actually to the period up to Chalcedon. Indeed, it was a Protestant formula. But the usual Eastern formula of "Seven Ecumenical Councils" is actually not very much better, when it tends, as it currently does, to restrict the Church's spiritual authority to the eight centuries, as if the "Golden Age" of the Church had already passed and we are now dwelling probably in an Iron Age, much lower on the scale of spiritual vigor and authority.[/quote]
So the Mind of the Fathers you advocate we acquire is what, ...confusion?
Psychologically, this attitude is quite comprehensible, but it cannot be theologically justified. Indeed, the Fathers of the Fourth and Fifth centuries are much more impressive than the later ones, and their unique greatness cannot be questioned. Yet, the Church remained fully alive also after Chalcedon. And, in fact, an overemphasis on the "first five centuries" dangerously distorts theological vision and prevents the right understanding of the Chalcedonian dogma itself. The decree of the Sixth Ecumenical Council then is regarded just as a kind of "appendix" to Chalcedon, and the decisive theological contribution of St. Maximus the Confessor is usually completely overlooked. An overemphasis on the "eight centuries" inevitably obscures the legacy of Byzantium. There is still a strong tendency to treat "Byzantinism" as an inferior sequel, or even as a decadent epilogue, to the patristic age. Probably, we are prepared, now more than before, to admit the authority of the Fathers. But "Byzantine theologians" are not yet counted among the Fathers. In fact, however, Byzantine theology was much more than a servile "repetition" of Patristics. It was an organic continuation of the patristic endeavor. It suffices to mention St. Symeon the New Theologian, in the Eleventh century, and St. Gregory Palamas, in the Fourteenth. A restrictive commitment of the Seven Ecumenical Councils actually contradicts the basic principle of the Living Tradition in the Church. Indeed, all Seven. But not only the Seven.
The formula of allegiance to "the Seven" originated in the Iconoclast arguments where it was specifically used in contrast to those which rejected it, that is, against those who recognised only Six. It was not considered the limit of Ecumenical Councils by any of the Orthodox Churches until Latin influence began to infiltrate. By definition called and ratified by the emperor, of an empire which is no more, there are nine. The Latins would rather forget the arguments of the Eighth which however is not forgotten by the Orthodox as attested in the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs in their reply to Pope Pius IX to the Easterns. http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/or ... y1848.html
Code: Select all
[quote]The Seventeenth century was a critical age in the history of Eastern theology. The teaching of theology had deviated at that time from the traditional patristic pattern and had undergone influence from the West. Theological habits and schemes were borrowed from the West, rather eclectically, both from the late Roman Scholasticism of Post-Tridentine times and from the various theologies of the Reformation. These borrowings affected heavily the theology of the alleged "Symbolic books" of the Eastern Church, which cannot be regarded as an authentic voice of the Christian East. The style of theology has been changed. Yet, this did not imply any change in doctrine. It was, indeed, a sore and ambiguous Pseudomorphosis of Eastern theology, which is not yet overcome even in our own time. This Pseudomorphosis actually meant a certain split in the soul of the East, to borrow one of the favorite phrases of Arnold Toynbee. Indeed, in the life of the Church the tradition of the Fathers has never been interrupted. The whole structure of Eastern Liturgy, in an inclusive sense of the word, is still thoroughly patristic. The life of prayer and meditation still follows the old pattern. The Philokalia, that famous encyclopedia of Eastern piety and asceticism, which includes writings of many centuries, from St. Anthony of Egypt up to the Hesychasts of the Fourteenth century, is increasingly becoming the manual of guidance for all those who are eager to practice Orthodoxy in our own time. The authority of its compiler St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mount, has been recently re-emphasized and reinforced by his formal canonization in the Greek Church. In this sense, it can be contended, "the age of the Fathers" still continues alive in the "Worshiping Church.” Should it not continue also in the schools, in the field of theological research and instruction? Should we not recover "the mind of the Fathers" also in our theological thinking and confession? "Recover," indeed, not as an archaic pose and habit, and not just as a venerable relic, but as an existential attitude, as a spiritual orientation. Actually, we are already living in an age of revival and restoration. Yet it is not enough to keep a "Byzantine Liturgy," to restore a "Byzantine style" in Iconography and Church architecture, to practice Byzantine modes of prayer and self-discipline. One has to go back to the very roots of this traditional "piety" which has been always cherished as a holy inheritance. One has to recover the patristic mind. Otherwise one will be still in danger of being internally split-between the "traditional" pattern of "piety" and the un-traditional pattern of mind. As "worshipers," the Orthodox have always stayed in the "tradition of the Fathers.” They must stand in the same tradition also as "theologians.” In no other way can the integrity of Orthodox existence be retained and secured.[/quote]
Hmm, as I see it, the deviation began with "the Fathers" conflating the Apostolic Church to themselves and not as they should have done, to come to the Mind of Christ. Rather than encouraging this phantom return to the fullness of the "Patristic Mind" I'd see it ditched altogether as a reference to or definition of the Orthodox Mind, which is the Mind of Christ, which it so often contradicts; except as anachronistic example of heresy.
Code: Select all
[quote]It is enough, in this connection, to refer to the discussions at the Congress of Orthodox theologians, held in Athens at the end of the year 1936. It was a representative gathering: eight theological faculties, in six different countries, were represented. Two major problems were conspicuous on the agenda: first, the "External influences on Orthodox Theology since the Fall of Constantinople"; secondly, the Authority of the Fathers. The fact of Western accretions has been frankly acknowledged and thoroughly analyzed. On the other hand, the authority of the Fathers has been re-emphasized and a "return to the Fathers" advocated and approved. Indeed, it must be a creative return. An element of self-criticism must be therein implied. This brings us to the concept of a Neopatristic synthesis, as the task and aim of Orthodox theology today. The Legacy of the Fathers is a challenge for our generation, in the Orthodox Church and outside of it. Its recreative power has been increasingly recognized and acknowledged in these recent decades, in various corners of divided Christendom. The growing appeal of patristic tradition is one of the most distinctive marks of our time. For the Orthodox this appeal is of special urgency and importance, because the total tradition of Orthodoxy has always been patristic.[/quote]
No it hasn't, the Orthodox Church has always been Christ centred, not patristic or papist or any other that claims the authority of our rightful Head... But, again, return to which "Fathers"? It seems those claiming patristic authority never get past claiming it for whichever doctrinal view they have and whichever 'Fathers" they decided to include or exclude.
For example, why does Augustine get quoted here while expounding on "the Fathers" as Orthodox? http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/a ... 6-06-038-f
Myrrh
