Are the Early Church Fathers to be taken seriously in marital advice and do they agree with NFP?

[gurneyhalleck1]

Again, I’m going to be controversial here but I’m just wondering how many Catholics really read the ENTIRETY of the Church Fathers and take them seriously as authorities on how to live family life and sexuality? The modern Church takes so much of its teaching from these guys. Their opinions on the Eucharist, Mass, authority, sacraments, and unity of the Church all sound great but, upon greater examination, many of their opinions are WAY OUT THERE!! Check these out! Can I totally take these guys as 100% authoritative as so many Catholics do??

“If we marry, it is ONLY so that we may bring up
children” --Justin Martyr 160 AD

“We despise the things of this life, even to the
pleasures of the soul. Each of us considers his wife
whom he has married according to the laws laid down by
us and he marries only with the sole purspose of
having children. After sowing the seed into the
ground, the farmer awaits the harvest. He does not
sow more seed on top of it. Likewise, to us the
procreation of child is the limit of our indulgence in
sexual appetite.” --Athenagoras 175 AD

“To such a spiritual man, after conception, his wife
is as a sister and is treated as if of the same
father” --Clement of Alexandria 195 AD

AM I REALLY ONLY SUPPOSED TO SLEEP WITH MY WIFE SOLELY TO MAKE CHILDREN? THAT SOUNDS CONTRADICTORY TO THE CHURCH’S NFP POSITION NOWDAYS!? It sounds like the unitive is actually a bad thing, only the procreative is important here!! hmmmm The Church never uses this quote because it really would preclude NFP as a bad thing!

“This, then, is the mark of the man, the beard. By this, he is seen to be a man. It is older than Eve. It is the token of the spuerior nature…It is therefore unholy to desecrate the symbol of manhood, hairiness.” —Clement of Alexandria 195 AD

SO I’M GOING TO HELL FOR SHAVING!? Wow! lol

"The beard must not be plucked. “You will not deface the figure of your beard”–Cyprian quoting Lev 19:32

AGAIN, SINCE I’M A CLEAN-SHAVEN GUY, I’M IN DEEP TROUBLE WITH MY SALVATION!!

If the Fathers have bizarre opinions here, how can I trust them with every other issue?

“Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented.”–St. Augustine of Hippo

Sounds like St. Augustine wouldn’t have liked NFP because conception is being prevented by intercourse taking place during infertile periods??

“For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny.”–Augustine of Hippo against Faustus 22:30

SO SEX HAS BEEN UNLEASHED FROM THE “CONTROL OF REASON” JUST TO ALLOW PROCREATION? Sounds like sex is a really bad thing to only be allowed for offspring…

Augustine would NOT approve of NFP any more than he would approve of artificial birth control. To be a real, true, traditionalist faithful Roman Catholic, one would have to have sex a few times for the sake of conception, NOT enjoy it, and then be celibate with his wife for the remainder of marriage…not too realistic…

 

[1ke]

Again, I’m going to be controversial here

You are not being controversial. You are being illogical.

but I’m just wondering how many Catholics really read the ENTIRETY of the Church Fathers and take them seriously as authorities on how to live family life and sexuality?

The EFCs are wonderful reading, and I agree not many Catholics have read them-- in their entirity or otherwise. However, if a Catholic is going to read anything, I think the Bible and the Catechism are the first priorities. The historical documents of the EFCs are way down the list.

The modern Church takes so much of its teaching from these guys

Uh, no, you have it backwards-- which is the source of your confusion.

The EFCs derive from the Church not the other way around. Their works are judged against the canon of Scripture and the deposit of faith. They witness to the deposit of faith, they do not create it.

Their opinions on the Eucharist, Mass, authority, sacraments, and unity of the Church all sound great but, upon greater examination, many of their opinions are WAY OUT THERE!! Check these out! Can I totally take these guys as 100% authoritative as so many Catholics do??

The EFCs individually are not infallible nor are they authoritative. Therefore NO Catholic should take then as such. Aquinas was brilliant, but in error regarding the Immaculate Conception-- which had not been defined as dogma in his day. That does not negate his brilliant work in the Summa-- but it requires that one read these documents with the mind of the Church and with understanding of what has been definitively defined as dogma/doctrine and what has not.

AM I REALLY ONLY SUPPOSED TO SLEEP WITH MY WIFE SOLELY TO MAKE CHILDREN? THAT SOUNDS CONTRADICTORY TO THE CHURCH’S NFP POSITION NOWDAYS!? It sounds like the unitive is actually a bad thing, only the procreative is important here!! hmmmm The Church never uses this quote because it really would preclude NFP as a bad thing!

Yes, some theologians emphasized one aspect of the marital embrace over the other. But, if you look at Church teaching-- as opposed to the writings of individuals-- BOTH elements are there.

SO I’M GOING TO HELL FOR SHAVING!? Wow! lol

AGAIN, SINCE I’M A CLEAN-SHAVEN GUY, I’M IN DEEP TROUBLE WITH MY SALVATION!!

Well, now you fail to distinguish between doctrine and discipline.

If the Fathers have bizarre opinions here, how can I trust them with every other issue?

The Church is the authority, not the EFCs.

Sounds like St. Augustine wouldn’t have liked NFP because conception is being prevented by intercourse taking place during infertile periods??

Not at all.

Augustine would NOT approve of NFP any more than he would approve of artificial birth control. To be a real, true, traditionalist faithful Roman Catholic, one would have to have sex a few times for the sake of conception, NOT enjoy it, and then be celibate with his wife for the remainder of marriage…not too realistic…

The Church does not teach this, and never has. Augustine is a great theologian, bishop, and Saint. His writings are not infallible nor has anyone claimed that they are.

You are very confused.

 

[TIME]

You have to remember a couple of historical facts. Before 1900 the infant mortality rate for newborns and toddlers 1-5, was 50% in the US, probably higher in non industrial countries.

The centuries before machinery and mechanization, life was very demanding physically for both men and demand. Laboring pretty hard day in and day out, so both husband and wife were physically spent at the end of the day. Because of the physical demands/stress on females, they probably did not ovulate as often or regularly as most of them do today. Given the very cushy lives we lead, at least in the US.

A prime example of this, are female athletes that are very physically demanding on their bodies and go for months even years without having a period. When they stop putting so much physical stress on their bodies they have regular cycles and can conceive.

If you want to look at trends in Catholic Church teachings you will notice, one big foundation for Church teachings are God’s Natural Laws. Chemical’s used to prevent life and abortion used to end life are hardly natural.

Take note of what Pope John Paul says just a few years ago…

John Paul II also says that if the only reason a couple is having sex is to transmit life, then they may be in danger of using each other rather than loving each other (see Love & Responsibility p. 233).

Also, John Paul describes the “beatifying experience” of conjugal union as a foretaste of the joys of heaven (see TB, Dec 16, 1981 and Jan 13, 1982). In Love & Responsibility, by his detailed discussion of the husband’s responsibility - out of authentic love for his wife - to see that she achieves sexual climax (see Love & Responsibility pp. 270-278).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You are not being controversial. You are being illogical.

The EFCs are wonderful reading, and I agree not many Catholics have read them-- in their entirity or otherwise. However, if a Catholic is going to read anything, I think the Bible and the Catechism are the first priorities. The historical documents of the EFCs are way down the list.

Uh, no, you have it backwards-- which is the source of your confusion.

The EFCs derive from the Church not the other way around. Their works are judged against the canon of Scripture and the deposit of faith. They witness to the deposit of faith, they do not create it.

The EFCs individually are not infallible nor are they authoritative. Therefore NO Catholic should take then as such. Aquinas was brilliant, but in error regarding the Immaculate Conception-- which had not been defined as dogma in his day. That does not negate his brilliant work in the Summa-- but it requires that one read these documents with the mind of the Church and with understanding of what has been definitively defined as dogma/doctrine and what has not.

Yes, some theologians emphasized one aspect of the marital embrace over the other. But, if you look at Church teaching-- as opposed to the writings of individuals-- BOTH elements are there.

Well, now you fail to distinguish between doctrine and discipline.

The Church is the authority, not the EFCs.

Not at all.

The Church does not teach this, and never has. Augustine is a great theologian, bishop, and Saint. His writings are not infallible nor has anyone claimed that they are.

You are very confused.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You are not being controversial. You are being illogical.

The EFCs are wonderful reading, and I agree not many Catholics have read them-- in their entirity or otherwise. However, if a Catholic is going to read anything, I think the Bible and the Catechism are the first priorities. The historical documents of the EFCs are way down the list.

Uh, no, you have it backwards-- which is the source of your confusion.

The EFCs derive from the Church not the other way around. Their works are judged against the canon of Scripture and the deposit of faith. They witness to the deposit of faith, they do not create it.

The EFCs individually are not infallible nor are they authoritative. Therefore NO Catholic should take then as such. Aquinas was brilliant, but in error regarding the Immaculate Conception-- which had not been defined as dogma in his day. That does not negate his brilliant work in the Summa-- but it requires that one read these documents with the mind of the Church and with understanding of what has been definitively defined as dogma/doctrine and what has not.

Yes, some theologians emphasized one aspect of the marital embrace over the other. But, if you look at Church teaching-- as opposed to the writings of individuals-- BOTH elements are there.

Well, now you fail to distinguish between doctrine and discipline.

The Church is the authority, not the EFCs.

Not at all.

The Church does not teach this, and never has. Augustine is a great theologian, bishop, and Saint. His writings are not infallible nor has anyone claimed that they are.

You are very confused.

Well, I was about to compliment your very well-argued and lucid statements but I take exception with the “you are very confused” ending. I am not confused nor am I some yokle off the street who just discovered Catholicism. Folks like yourself will quote Augustine, Aquinas, or the Early Fathers when it suits you to be sure. You won’t say it’s “infallible” but you use these sources as evidence for your positions. Problem is, when they say something nutty or embarrassing, you tend to overlook and pass those statements off as “discipline not doctrine.” And please don’t lecture me that Augustine is not infallible. I never said anyone in here was infallible save the Pope. You said that. Augustine’s hand reaches very far, friend. No two theologians in the history of Catholicism have had more influence on Catholic dogma and teachings than Augustine and Aquinas. Infallible? I didn’t say that. Influential in a HUGE way and yet ignored when they say nutty stuff? True. Please don’t drop condescending statements like: “you are very confused.” Thanks for enlightening me, venerable one! lol

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Of course the Fathers hold to the basic Church teaching on the Sacrament of Marriage, divorce and re-marriage and God’s moral law of Human sexuality. The Churches teaching on these basic matters would not be any different. Now their personal opinions on married life and biology most likely reflect the opinions of their day and have no direct bearing on the teachings of the Church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You have to remember a couple of historical facts. Before 1900 the infant mortality rate for newborns and toddlers 1-5, was 50% in the US, probably higher in non industrial countries.

The centuries before machinery and mechanization, life was very demanding physically for both men and demand. Laboring pretty hard day in and day out, so both husband and wife were physically spent at the end of the day. Because of the physical demands/stress on females, they probably did not ovulate as often or regularly as most of them do today. Given the very cushy lives we lead, at least in the US.

A prime example of this, are female athletes that are very physically demanding on their bodies and go for months even years without having a period. When they stop putting so much physical stress on their bodies they have regular cycles and can conceive.

If you want to look at trends in Catholic Church teachings you will notice, one big foundation for Church teachings are God’s Natural Laws. Chemical’s used to prevent life and abortion used to end life are hardly natural.

Take note of what Pope John Paul says just a few years ago…

John Paul II also says that if the only reason a couple is having sex is to transmit life, then they may be in danger of using each other rather than loving each other (see Love & Responsibility p. 233).

Also, John Paul describes the “beatifying experience” of conjugal union as a foretaste of the joys of heaven (see TB, Dec 16, 1981 and Jan 13, 1982). In Love & Responsibility, by his detailed discussion of the husband’s responsibility - out of authentic love for his wife - to see that she achieves sexual climax (see Love & Responsibility pp. 270-278).

Very good points. I am NOT arguing that abortion and other such issues are valid or acceptable. I am just saying that NFP would NOT be embraced by folks like Augustine, Aquinas, and the early fathers. The earliest fathers very obviously were extremists with sexuality who looked at sex as a horrific state that is ONLY for procreation and, to be frank, is just a horrible drudge into hellish lust but a ‘necessary evil’ to make babies.

I certainly don’t feel that way but there is an inconsistency across tradition. Many Catholics I read nowdays are oversimplifying in an anachronistic way the consistencies of tradition in our Church. There has been varying opinion. We quote the early fathers when it suits us I think.

I did enjoy your points, thanks!

 

[1ke]

Well, I was about to compliment your very well-argued and lucid statements but I take exception with the “you are very confused” ending. I am not confused nor am I some yokle off the street who just discovered Catholicism. Folks like yourself will quote Augustine, Aquinas, or the Early Fathers when it suits you to be sure. You won’t say it’s “infallible” but you use these sources as evidence for your positions. Problem is, when they say something nutty or embarrassing, you tend to overlook and pass those statements off as “discipline not doctrine.” And please don’t lecture me that Augustine is not infallible. I never said anyone in here was infallible save the Pope. You said that. Augustine’s hand reaches very far, friend. No two theologians in the history of Catholicism have had more influence on Catholic dogma and teachings than Augustine and Aquinas. Infallible? I didn’t say that. Influential in a HUGE way and yet ignored when they say nutty stuff? True. Please don’t drop condescending statements like: “you are very confused.” Thanks for enlightening me, venerable one! lol

Sorry if I offended you. As I said, the EFCs must be measured *against *the deposit of faith, not the other way around and hence your confusion on the subject.

I don’t think anything you quoted by the EFCs is “nutty” or “embarrassing”-- nor to be ignored. I did not try to “pass off” something as discipline and not doctrine-- it is what it is, and it’s not doctrine.

You are firstly, taking your quotes vastly out of context. As just one example for St Justin, you quote: “If we marry, it is ONLY so that we may bring up children” --Justin Martyr 160 AD

Your emphasis on the word “only” is misplaced.

In context, St Justin is talking about the pagans exposing their children and having promiscuous sex. Of course he is emphasizing fidelity and perpetuity of marriage, the state into which children are welcomed and protected instead of ex**posed and left to die. Same with your quote of Athenagoras, he is comparing and contrasting the promiscuous pagans with the chastity and restraint of Christians. None of their statements are doctrinal, either.

Your quotes are grasping at straws, trying to make the texts say things they do not.

 

[reluctant_saint]

There is something important that we have overlooked here. These early Christians were living in a pagan time. Pagan cults of Aphrodite, for instance, had ritualistic forms of prostitution. The city of Corinth was particularly known for prostitution. When Christians went out into Gentile countries, they had moral standards very much similar to the Jews, but their dealings with the Gentile world were more immediate. Christians reacted to the lasciviousness of the Gentile world by swinging the pendulum back the other way. I have a tendency to think that the “extreme views” we see in the Early Church Fathers are the result of their reaction against the Pagan world, were sex was worshiped. Of course, this mentality would have stuck with the early Christians even after the fall of Pagan Rome. That’s how movements work.

The Early Church Fathers were just men. If there was a particular mindset in the early Church, we wouldn’t expect it to simply go away. Does this mean that they are not a reliable source of Christian doctrine? By no means. We simply have to understand where they’re coming from; just like we need to understand the times when the Bible was written in order to understand the Bible best. Everything has a context. Jesus has a context in Jewish tradition. Protestantism has a context in Medieval corruption. The Early Church Fathers have a context in the Pagan world.

 

[Verbum]

Hi, Gurney__,

It is not prudent to judge old times by today’s standards.Early Christians, including some Fathers, had their problems. There were problems even in apostolic times, as St.Paul’s epistles show us. There is no reason to be disturbed by the unpalatable opinions of some early and late Fathers. The Church views as church doctrine only the UNANIMOUS consent of the Fathers.

Verbum

 

[reluctant_saint]

Hi, Gurney__,

It is not prudent to judge old times by today’s standards.Early Christians, including some Fathers, had their problems. There were problems even in apostolic times, as St.Paul’s epistles show us. There is no reason to be disturbed by the unpalatable opinions of some early and late Fathers. The Church views as church doctrine only the UNANIMOUS consent of the Fathers.

Verbum

To come to Gurney’s defense, I think what he’s trying to say is that this is a unanimous teaching of the Early Church Fathers. As far as I know, he might very well be correct. Still, you are right in saying that we cannot judge the Church Fathers by today’s standards. The Early Church Fathers must be put into their correct historical and sociological context.

As I have already stated above, the Fathers were reacting against the lasciviousness of the Pagan world. In their attempt to combat the sexual promiscuity of that Pagan world, they swung the pendulum too far the other way. In their attempts to stress the importance of fertility, they neglected, even seem to have disparaged, the unitive aspect of sex.

When we are interpreting the Fathers today, we must look first for the truth they were upholding. Secondly we look at what they were battling against. The Father’s were upholding the importance of fertility in sexual intercourse, and they were combating the promiscuity of the times. This, then, is what we need to get from the Fathers. Any exaggerations can be explained by their context.

In the Bible, why does Paul say we are not saved by works, while James says we are. Because they each have their own context. Within each context, what they mean by the word “works” is two different things. Paul uses the word “works” in a context of the Jewish law. James uses the same word in a context Christian charity. Paul is preaching to the Gentiles against the Judaizers. James is preaching to the Jews against antinomianism.

This is the same sort of analysis we need to do with the Early Church Fathers. We must understand their context and then interpret their words within that context.