Anglican bishop lays mitre, crozier at our lady?s feet as he leaves for ordinariate [ewtn]

[JesusforMadrid]

I concur that the idea of the Church teaching error and being tainted by untruths is a tough notion to ponder. The 39 Articles make it clear that all have erred at some time. All churches have erred, including Rome and the East, according to the 39 Articles. But for me, I find the Calvinistic parts of the Articles as difficult to stomach as the idea of Rome erring. Receptionism, a Cranmerian notion, bugs me a great deal.

I agree. Receptionism is another example of scholasticism gone awry. I like the Orthodox view of the Eucharist, which seems to reflect the ECFs and which is also pretty close to the Lutheran view: it is the real presence of Christ, his true Body and Blood mystically present in the bread and wine which are offered to the Father in his name and consecrated by the divine Spirit of God. How it changes, however, is a mystery.

The Orthodox do not view the Body of Christ as being broken or in error–they don’t have the “two lungs idea” of JPII–affirming rather that it continues as is has for 2000 years in the Holy Orthodox Church. That is a rather novel idea for an Evangelical and quite reassuring if true.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

There is far more willingness to reconcile, appreciate, and reach out with respect to the Orthodox coming from the Catholic Church than is reciprocated by the East. I would not even consider becoming an Orthodox mostly due to their views of the Atonement, I’m fine with the filioque, prefer Augustinian and Anselmian views of Original Sin and Atonement, I find Catholicism to be more truly Catholic in that it is far more accessible, universal, and I think its order and centrality in Peter makes more sense. I think there is a strong anti-Catholic sentiment in many quarters of Orthodoxy but I rarely see a strong if even in existence at all anti-Orthodoxy sentiment amongst Catholics. I see the papacy and the Catholic Church as the #1 moral authority and shining example of leadership in the world. Most people can’t even name two let alone one patriarch or archbishop or even bishop within the Orthodox world. I think if ecumenism is to take place, Rome is the best bet and best hope. But that’s just me.

I agree. Receptionism is another example of scholasticism gone awry. I like the Orthodox view of the Eucharist, which seems to reflect the ECFs and which is also pretty close to the Lutheran view: it is the real presence of Christ, his true Body and Blood mystically present in the bread and wine which are offered to the Father in his name and consecrated by the divine Spirit of God. How it changes, however, is a mystery.

The Orthodox do not view the Body of Christ as being broken or in error–they don’t have the “two lungs idea” of JPII–affirming rather that it continues as is has for 2000 years in the Holy Orthodox Church. That is a rather novel idea for an Evangelical and quite reassuring if true.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

There is far more willingness to reconcile, appreciate, and reach out with respect to the Orthodox coming from the Catholic Church than is reciprocated by the East. I would not even consider becoming an Orthodox mostly due to their views of the Atonement, I’m fine with the filioque, prefer Augustinian and Anselmian views of Original Sin and Atonement, I find Catholicism to be more truly Catholic in that it is far more accessible, universal, and I think its order and centrality in Peter makes more sense. I think there is a strong anti-Catholic sentiment in many quarters of Orthodoxy but I rarely see a strong if even in existence at all anti-Orthodoxy sentiment amongst Catholics. I see the papacy and the Catholic Church as the #1 moral authority and shining example of leadership in the world. Most people can’t even name two let alone one patriarch or archbishop or even bishop within the Orthodox world. I think if ecumenism is to take place, Rome is the best bet and best hope. But that’s just me.

Orthodox teach more than just the Christus Victor view of atonement, both in liturgy and doctrine. The Orthodox Study Bible is a great resource for understanding how the Fathers view Scripture and by extension, the Orthodox. Since the Fathers held a variety of views on atonement, so can Orthodox. They may, however, overemphasise Christus Victor in order to show their distinctiveness with the West, Anslem and the Reformers. I have seen this in some of their literature.

You point out a number of strong points about Rome, much of which I concur. I also like their willingness to incorporate new movements such as Opus Dei, the Neo Catechumenals and the Charismatic Renewal.

On the other hand, my reading of the ECFs suggest that the Orthodox Church is more like the Early Church in theology, liturgy and ecclesiology.

There are also things I like about Evangelical churches–their passion for evangelism, their focus on using one’s spiritual gifts and their desire for a personal relationship with God.

Rome would benefit from having more evangelicals and Anglicans; Orthodoxy, at least in the States, has benefitted tremendously with the huge influx of Evangelicals, who helped to develop the Orthodox Study Bible, Ancient Faith Radio and Orthodox Christian Fellowships, amongst other initiatives.

I am currently reading a scholarly and gracious book written about the differences in ecclesiology between Rome and Orthodoxy called His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism Between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches by Laurent Cleenewerck, an Orthodox priest. I highly recommend it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks for recommending the book; I’ll have to check it out. I agree that the Orthodox Church appears more like the early Church in that it was conciliar but they lack the Rock, which is crucial IMO. I’ve gone through a lot of thinking on this, agonizing, study, prayer, and analysis. I think the papacy played a huge role in leading the Church, being recognized as the Church that signed off on things, led, and disciplined so much. The popes led the charge against heresies and worked within the conciliar framework of the time. History dealt the Catholic Church a tough hand in the barbarian conquest of Rome. The pope led, preserved, and bolstered the Church and christianized the barbarians. The framework of a conciliar model evaporated out of historical necessity and logistics and who is to say God did not intend it to unfold as such? I don’t know. But I tend to caucus with Newman and his development theory. Trying to look back at the days of Constantine and company and try to stay on that model of polity is as bad, IMO, as doing what Presbyterians and Baptists do trying to “re-create” the Early Church by having a council of presbyter elders, speaking in tongues, and total immersion baptisms with prophesying, etc. I am leaning toward the Catholic view of polity that the Church is a worldwide entity, destined to be kept together with the glue of the papacy. I could be wrong. I’m still open but this is where I’m headed theologically and what makes sense to me as a Christian. Trying to make sense of history, Christianity, orthodoxy (small o), and theology is no small task for a humble layman!

Orthodox teach more than just the Christus Victor view of atonement, both in liturgy and doctrine. The Orthodox Study Bible is a great resource for understanding how the Fathers view Scripture and by extension, the Orthodox. Since the Fathers held a variety of views on atonement, so can Orthodox. They may, however, overemphasise Christus Victor in order to show their distinctiveness with the West, Anslem and the Reformers. I have seen this in some of their literature.

You point out a number of strong points about Rome, much of which I concur. I also like their willingness to incorporate new movements such as Opus Dei, the Neo Catechumenals and the Charismatic Renewal.

On the other hand, my reading of the ECFs suggest that the Orthodox Church is more like the Early Church in theology, liturgy and ecclesiology.

There are also things I like about Evangelical churches–their passion for evangelism, their focus on using one’s spiritual gifts and their desire for a personal relationship with God.

Rome would benefit from having more evangelicals and Anglicans; Orthodoxy, at least in the States, has benefitted tremendously with the huge influx of Evangelicals, who helped to develop the Orthodox Study Bible, Ancient Faith Radio and Orthodox Christian Fellowships, amongst other initiatives.

I am currently reading a scholarly and gracious book written about the differences in ecclesiology between Rome and Orthodoxy called His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism Between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches by Laurent Cleenewerck, an Orthodox priest. I highly recommend it.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Thanks for recommending the book; I’ll have to check it out. I agree that the Orthodox Church appears more like the early Church in that it was conciliar but they lack the Rock, which is crucial IMO. I’ve gone through a lot of thinking on this, agonizing, study, prayer, and analysis. I think the papacy played a huge role in leading the Church, being recognized as the Church that signed off on things, led, and disciplined so much. The popes led the charge against heresies and worked within the conciliar framework of the time. History dealt the Catholic Church a tough hand in the barbarian conquest of Rome. The pope led, preserved, and bolstered the Church and christianized the barbarians. The framework of a conciliar model evaporated out of historical necessity and logistics and who is to say God did not intend it to unfold as such? I don’t know. But I tend to caucus with Newman and his development theory. Trying to look back at the days of Constantine and company and try to stay on that model of polity is as bad, IMO, as doing what Presbyterians and Baptists do trying to “re-create” the Early Church by having a council of presbyter elders, speaking in tongues, and total immersion baptisms with prophesying, etc. I am leaning toward the Catholic view of polity that the Church is a worldwide entity, destined to be kept together with the glue of the papacy. I could be wrong. I’m still open but this is where I’m headed theologically and what makes sense to me as a Christian. Trying to make sense of history, Christianity, orthodoxy (small o), and theology is no small task for a humble layman!

Thank you for your thoughts. I actually fear what could be the next dogmatic declaration from Rome (Co-Mediatrix?, Co-Redemtrix?), which is why I need to read Newman’s An essay on the development of Christian doctrine .

Would that all humble laymen had your knowledge of the Church!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Oh goodness gracious I appreciate the kind compliment but I don’t have the depth of knowledge that many in here have. I’m trying my best!

I wouldn’t fear any dogmatic declarations. A lot of them have been awesome IMO. John Paul II was adamant that we cannot and will not EVER ordain women. I appreciate that kind of declaration!

Thank you for your thoughts. I actually fear what could be the next dogmatic declaration from Rome (Co-Mediatrix?, Co-Redemtrix?), which is why I need to read Newman’s An essay on the development of Christian doctrine .

Would that all humble laymen had your knowledge of the Church!

 

[JohnnyReb]

I don’t know anybody who would ascribe more authority to the ECFs than to Holy Scriptures. Orthodoxy doesn’t and instead sees a hierarchy of authority in the writings of the Early Church, with the Bible on top.

Orthodoxy just sees it all as one source-tradition. They see, if I understand their position correctly, that scripture is part of the tradition. Its a consistant position, even if I am not sure at this point if I am in agreement with it.

The key question is: how can we best understand Scripture? How did the Early Church understand the teachings of the disciples? For the ECFs, justification is only the beginning of our life in Christ. They wrote more about the “two ways” and how to work out our salvation, Who understood Romans better: Clement of Rome, St. Paul’s disciple or Calvin, writing 1500 years later?

I think both men were capable of great spiritual insight (due the presence of the Holy Spirit) and to error because they are human. Are you suggesting that the further we move away from Christ’s time on earth, the less our ability to know the truth becomes? I doubt you would say that, so you get the benefit of the doubt.

Is the 39 Articles more authoritative than the consensus of the Early Church Fathers? If so, you are ineluctably forced to conclude that the Holy Spirit–the Spirit of Truth–abandoned some amazingly Godly men such as Clement who were martyred for the cause of Christ.

No. I simply see them as a kind of doctrinal creed, explaining what is believed by some in the Anglican community of faith. They present a Protestant stream into our thought, but they are not the be all end all.

I cannot do that. One of the joys of both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy is not having to conclude that the Holy Spirit allowed the Church to enter into error.

Unfortunately for me, it is clear that many false teachers would work their way into the ranks of the body of Christ. It is our job to test what they say to see if it lines up with the truth that has already been revealed to us.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Usually Evangelical Anglicans tend to passionately wrap their theology around the 39 Articles and hold fast to them as a central roadmap to their Anglican journey. I would agree with you about the Fathers and their opinions being more valid than cats like Zwingli, Calvin, or Bucer, especially since a few of them like Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp actually lived during the close of the apostolic age and are believed to have been disciples of St. John.

Are you saying that you’re considering becoming Catholic or Orthodox, Madrid? Your last statement indicated you are departing evangelical Anglicanism for the Tiber or Bosphorus…

The only place where I would differ is that I would see Calvin et al, as having opinions as equally valid as say Ignatius or Polycarp. They bring valuable insight to the body of Christ.

I too find the more strictly reformed aspects of the 39 articles to be unsettling, I have never embraced reformed/Calvinist theology in any form.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Good points, as usual Johnny. I see the 39 Articles as the closest thing to a confession of faith that Anglicanism ever had. Anglo-Catholics dismiss them as a joke and an unnecessary burp in Anglican history that needs to be forgotten. The Articles are very Protestant in tone but at least they’re honest. They have a Calvinistic undertone I think. Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr’s (both Calvinists) friendship with Cranmer and help they gave him writing the Book of Common Prayer is most evident in the Articles!

Your point about distance from the apostlic age not necessarily meaning a person can’t make valid points is a valid argument in itself. Look at guys like Augustine, far removed, and Aquinas, super duper far removed (!) from the apostolic age. Yet no Catholic would say those guys are super titans of theology and relevence!

Orthodoxy just sees it all as one source-tradition. They see, if I understand their position correctly, that scripture is part of the tradition. Its a consistant position, even if I am not sure at this point if I am in agreement with it.

I think both men were capable of great spiritual insight (due the presence of the Holy Spirit) and to error because they are human. Are you suggesting that the further we move away from Christ’s time on earth, the less our ability to know the truth becomes? I doubt you would say that, so you get the benefit of the doubt.

No. I simply see them as a kind of doctrinal creed, explaining what is believed by some in the Anglican community of faith. They present a Protestant stream into our thought, but they are not the be all end all.

Unfortunately for me, it is clear that many false teachers would work their way into the ranks of the body of Christ. It is our job to test what they say to see if it lines up with the truth that has already been revealed to us.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Orthodoxy just sees it all as one source-tradition. They see, if I understand their position correctly, that scripture is part of the tradition. Its a consistent position, even if I am not sure at this point if I am in agreement with it.

Yes, I think this is how the Orthodox view tradition: it is one stream, from which we derive the New Testament Canon, as selected by the Early Church and the writings of the Early Church. They would argue that Scripture is the most authoritative.

But if we want to follow Scripture, we should also pay attention to evidence from the Early Church outside of the formal NT canon, since as St. Paul wrote in 2 Thes 2:15:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

So the Orthodox view is completely coherent with Scripture.

I think both men were capable of great spiritual insight (due the presence of the Holy Spirit) and to error because they are human. Are you suggesting that the further we move away from Christ’s time on earth, the less our ability to know the truth becomes? I doubt you would say that, so you get the benefit of the doubt.

No, the importance is not distance in time or geography but rather data. Christian truth, like any truth, is the confluence of independent streams of good evidence. The Early Church Fathers are more authoritative in interpreting Scripture because they had more evidence with which to form an opinion.

Consider Clement, the 1st century Bishop of Rome. In order to understand the Christian message, he had:

1. Scripture (most of it, except perhaps some of the letters of St. John)
2. As a disciple, the direct teaching and correction of St. Paul
3. As a bishop, ordained by St. Peter, the conciliar advice and correction of other bishops, many of which knew Jesus and/or the disciples
4. The scrutiny of hundreds of laymen who knew either Jesus or the disciples and would object if he taught or wrote anything heretical
5. The writings of other Early Church Fathers who knew Jesus and the disciples, much of which has been lost
6. The guidance of the Holy Spirit

If Clement wanted to understand Paul’s understanding of justification, he asked him.I Clement was considered so orthodox that it was considered part of the Canon by many early Christians.

Now, 1500 years later. What does John Calvin have in order to interpret Paul’s letter to Clement’s home church of Romans? He has #1, a bit of #5 (but not the Didache, not I Clement and many other ECF documents recently discovered). And Calvin has #6, the Holy Spirit. So, yes, based on sources of evidence, both written and oral, the Early Christian Fathers are more authoritative than John Calvin and I would weigh their opinion on issues like justification and imputed righteousness more heavily than that of Calvin.

Are they individually infallible, like Scripture? No. Are they collectively infallible insofar as they agree with each other and with what was always taught? The Orthodox position would be yes, as evidenced by the Church councils. The trinity, for example, is an infallible truth, although it does not appear in Scripture.

Unfortunately for me, it is clear that many false teachers would work their way into the ranks of the body of Christ. It is our job to test what they say to see if it lines up with the truth that has already been revealed to us.

Yes, we should be good Bereans and scrutinise our teachers. But by what standard? Evangelicals must admit that the “Bible+Holy Spirit” is not a very reliable hermeneutic, or we wouldn’t have varying Evangelical positions on essentials such as baptism, communion, charismatic gifts, eschatology, ecclesiology, etc.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Yes, I think this is how the Orthodox view tradition: it is one stream, from which we derive the New Testament Canon, as selected by the Early Church and the writings of the Early Church. They would argue that Scripture is the most authoritative.

The last sentence sounds very much like what is taught in Anglican circles. Scripture is the most authoritative, but we also embrace tradition and reason. I do know that there are some differences though.

But if we want to follow Scripture, we should also pay attention to evidence from the Early Church outside of the formal NT canon, since as St. Paul wrote in 2 Thes 2:15: So the Orthodox view is completely coherent with Scripture.

I don’t dismiss tradition, that is a valid point. That passage is one that I am wrestling with right now. I am waffling back and forth…I mean does it only apply to the first century (it speaks of traditions that were already handed down?) None the less, I think too many Protestants esp. Evangelicals make the mistake of dismissing what is taught here.

No, the importance is not distance in time or geography but rather data. Christian truth, like any truth, is the confluence of independent streams of good evidence. The Early Church Fathers are more authoritative in interpreting Scripture because they had more evidence with which to form an opinion.

Consider Clement, the 1st century Bishop of Rome. In order to understand the Christian message, he had:

1. Scripture (most of it, except perhaps some of the letters of St. John)
2. As a disciple, the direct teaching and correction of St. Paul
3. As a bishop, ordained by St. Peter, the conciliar advice and correction of other bishops, many of which knew Jesus and/or the disciples
4. The scrutiny of hundreds of laymen who knew either Jesus or the disciples and would object if he taught or wrote anything heretical
5. The writings of other Early Church Fathers who knew Jesus and the disciples, much of which has been lost
6. The guidance of the Holy Spirit

If Clement wanted to understand Paul’s understanding of justification, he asked him.I Clement was considered so orthodox that it was considered part of the Canon by many early Christians.

Excellent point, thanks for laying that out for me. Well reasoned.

Now, 1500 years later. What does John Calvin have in order to interpret Paul’s letter to Clement’s home church of Romans? He has #1, a bit of #5 (but not the Didache, not I Clement and many other ECF documents recently discovered). And Calvin has #6, the Holy Spirit. So, yes, based on sources of evidence, both written and oral, the Early Christian Fathers are more authoritative than John Calvin and I would weigh their opinion on issues like justification and imputed righteousness more heavily than that of Calvin.

Are they individually infallible, like Scripture? No. Are they collectively infallible insofar as they agree with each other and with what was always taught? The Orthodox position would be yes, as evidenced by the Church councils. The trinity, for example, is an infallible truth, although it does not appear in Scripture.

I find it interesting that while the Trinity is clearly taught in scripture, the word is never used, and this truth was given us by an ecumenical council. Its one of the most important doctrines of Christianity, and not given by a papal decree.

Yes, we should be good Bereans and scrutinise our teachers. But by what standard? Evangelicals must admit that the “Bible+Holy Spirit” is not a very reliable hermeneutic, or we wouldn’t have varying Evangelical positions on essentials such as baptism, communion, charismatic gifts, eschatology, ecclesiology, etc.

I agree here about what you say about the Evangelicals, and this is common here in the USA. It just ends up with too many pointless debates…Calvinism vs Arminianism, Cessationism vs Continuism, Pre Trib Post Trib, Baptism saves vs doesn’t save…it gets old, and believe me these issues can be very divisive among Evangelicals. They have said nasty things about each other over some of those issues. When I look at that, I get the Catholic and Orthodox argument against Sola Scriptura and frankly agree with it.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I agree here about what you say about the Evangelicals, and this is common here in the USA. It just ends up with too many pointless debates…Calvinism vs Arminianism, Cessationism vs Continuism, Pre Trib Post Trib, Baptism saves vs doesn’t save…it gets old, and believe me these issues can be very divisive among Evangelicals. They have said nasty things about each other over some of those issues. When I look at that, I get the Catholic and Orthodox argument against Sola Scriptura and frankly agree with it.

Here’s to Evangelical Anglicans embracing Orthodox hermeneutics on **Catholic Answers **

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

herme-who?

Here’s to Evangelical Anglicans embracing Orthodox hermeneutics on **Catholic Answers **

 

[Bluegoat]

Yes, I think this is how the Orthodox view tradition: it is one stream, from which we derive the New Testament Canon, as selected by the Early Church and the writings of the Early Church. They would argue that Scripture is the most authoritative.

I don’t think they would argue that it is the most authoritative - I think most would not make sense. Tradition is one thing and so is internally consistent. Tradition doesn’t just come from the Early Church - there are Church Fathers from throughout the history of the Church - there may be some alive now. Tradition is that which has been always and everywhere taught in the Church, whatever the source - Scripture, the ecumenical councils, the liturgy, the writings of the Fathers, iconography…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My understanding, and it may be flawed, is that a Church Father is someone along the lines of Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Origen, and those holy saints and learned bishops/priests/deacons from the early Church, mostly from the apostolic age but also in the ensuing first early centuries only. I wouldn’t consider Augustine of Hippo a Father despite my love for he and his writings. Cyprian I would more, however.

I don’t think they would argue that it is the most authoritative - I think most would not make sense. Tradition is one thing and so is internally consistent. Tradition doesn’t just come from the Early Church - there are Church Fathers from throughout the history of the Church - there may be some alive now. Tradition is that which has been always and everywhere taught in the Church, whatever the source - Scripture, the ecumenical councils, the liturgy, the writings of the Fathers, iconography…

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Thank you Alexander, my brother in Christ. It is such a joy to be in Communion with the See of Peter. No longer must I live in turmoil over what doctrine or belief will be changed.

I really do believe that much of the suffering some are going through, questioning every teaching of the Church, lies in the fact that one does not believe in Jesus’s words to Peter. That he is the rock that the Church would be built on and that what so ever he bound on earth would be bound in Heaven. If one can just accept that authority, I think, they will find peace. We are willful human beings and it seems must be in control, when if we let God take over the control we find that peace many are searching for.

I do feel a sadness for those who must question everything and never seem to find the answer. For those who choose a different path than the Catholic Church, they should be at peace with their decision, so I do wonder when posters keep bringing up what they feel as negative in our beliefs, as if they are sure that their choice is the correct one, why be so concerned with what the Catholic Church teaches. I am not concerned when my friends are not Catholic, although I would pray they would someday find the truth I have found. I believe that the Holy Spirit reaches people where they are at and some cannot see what has been shown to me. I am not anyones judge and only have to answer to our Lord for my own life.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

Dear Servant of God, Bernadette,

You remind me of a scene from “Bless me Father” where Fr. Duddleswell comes in on his curate’s session with a potential convert to Catholicism.

He told her, "Don’t be always asking, ‘Why, why, why’ - 'tis a Protestant word, you know!


God bless,

Alex

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What would a Catholic word be then?

Dear Servant of God, Bernadette,

You remind me of a scene from “Bless me Father” where Fr. Duddleswell comes in on his curate’s session with a potential convert to Catholicism.

He told her, "Don’t be always asking, ‘Why, why, why’ - 'tis a Protestant word, you know!


God bless,

Alex

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I don’t think they would argue that it is the most authoritative - I think most would not make sense. Tradition is one thing and so is internally consistent. Tradition doesn’t just come from the Early Church - there are Church Fathers from throughout the history of the Church - there may be some alive now. Tradition is that which has been always and everywhere taught in the Church, whatever the source - Scripture, the ecumenical councils, the liturgy, the writings of the Fathers, iconography…

Yes, I have read Orthodox who argue that this hierarchy in authority exists, with Scripture on top, and the ECFs and Ecumenical Councils just below that, and then local or regional councils. Even within Scripture, some would point to a hierarchy, with Jesus’ words considered the most authoritative.

I believe the Orthodox mindset is very much one of defending the deposit of the faith from innovation and heresy rather than developing new dogma. They eschew scholasticism in the development of doctrine. That would seem a big difference with Roman Catholicism. However, I am sure that my understanding of Orthodoxy is rather incomplete on this point, so I hope our Orthodox posters here will correct any of my errors.

 

[Harpazo]

My understanding, and it may be flawed, is that a Church Father is someone along the lines of Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Origen, and those holy saints and learned bishops/priests/deacons from the early Church, mostly from the apostolic age but also in the ensuing first early centuries only. I wouldn’t consider Augustine of Hippo a Father despite my love for he and his writings. Cyprian I would more, however.

In Orthodoxy, we recognize the Fathers as those who kept the faith, defended it (in some cases even to their martyrdom) by teaching it and preserving it inviolate and passed it on to others. The ones you mentioned were Fathers of the early Church. For us, there are so many Church Fathers (and Church Mothers for that matter, but they generally don’t receive as much “press” for one reason or another). Some that come to mind are St. John of Damascus, St. Simeon the New Theologian, St. Innocent of Alaska, St. Alexis of Wilkes-Barre, St. Tikhon et al.

At the end of mostly all our services, we pray “Through the prayers of our holy fathers, O Lord Jesus Christ Our God have mercy on us.” We don’t confine Church fatherhood to the Apostolic and Patristic age only, but it is continuous. At least, that is the Orthodox understanding which I have found to be helpful.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Andrew,

Yes, your view of “fathers” makes plenty of sense. I’ve heard that outlook and it’s a logical one indeed. I simply am focusing on the apostolic fathers or early church fathers when I say “fathers.” I’m a major league Augustine fan, unlike the Orthodox generally speaking, and yet I don’t consider him a father, as I said earlier. Of course he’s a father of Western views of original sin, soteriology, Atonement, sacraments, and anti-heresy warrior, but I just choose personally to use the term for the early, early, heroes who laid the concrete that the Church was built on. The term is a loose one and can be used in many ways. I respect your approach 100%. It’s a pretty fluid term.

In Orthodoxy, we recognize the Fathers as those who kept the faith, defended it (in some cases even to their martyrdom) by teaching it and preserving it inviolate and passed it on to others. The ones you mentioned were Fathers of the early Church. For us, there are so many Church Fathers (and Church Mothers for that matter, but they generally don’t receive as much “press” for one reason or another). Some that come to mind are St. John of Damascus, St. Simeon the New Theologian, St. Innocent of Alaska, St. Alexis of Wilkes-Barre, St. Tikhon et al.

At the end of mostly all our services, we pray “Through the prayers of our holy fathers, O Lord Jesus Christ Our God have mercy on us.” We don’t confine Church fatherhood to the Apostolic and Patristic age only, but it is continuous. At least, that is the Orthodox understanding which I have found to be helpful.

In Christ,
Andrew