Early Church Fathers...Matter or Not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

aidanbradypop

Guest
When we read on the Early Church Fathers and their writings, we can see where they stood on matters such as the Immaculate Conception, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the RP in the Eucharist.

How much do the Early Church Fathers play a part in your faith or denomination?

Does your faith value their teachings?

Have you ever really heard much about them? (I was surprised when I found out many people know nothing about them)
 
Yes of course they matter. How am I supposed to interpret the Bible exactly - just sit there and hope the Holy Spirit tells me its true meaning? Or read learned theologians, doctors and fathers of the Church and try to establish the universal consensus. The Vicentian canon, ‘that which was believed everywhere, always and by all’, that is , the guide to the authentic Faith, is central to my understanding, and therefore, the Church Fathers are very important.
 
Indifferently said:
Yes of course they matter. How am I supposed to interpret the Bible exactly - just sit there and hope the Holy Spirit tells me its true meaning? Or read learned theologians, doctors and fathers of the Church and try to establish the universal consensus. The Vicentian canon, ‘that which was believed everywhere, always and by all’, that is , the guide to the authentic Faith, is central to my understanding, and therefore, the Church Fathers are very important.
Click to expand...
Some believe they can sit there and gain insight! 🤷

Nice to hear that you give them much respect! 👍
 
The fathers are respected and studied but not considered Infallible or authoritative. After all, most of them lived hundreds of years after Christ & Apostles, and did not have any direct access to their teachings. A father living in the third century may look to us like a representative of the Early Church, while in reality he was as much distanced from the apostolic age as we are from George Washington or Napoleon.

Regarding the development of the doctrin, the quite earliest fathers seem to be the most reticient of certain doctrinal points that started to flourish centuries later. When St. Irenaeus write a couple of sentences ( among the volumes of text he produced) comparing the Virgin and Eve, he probably did not have all the four Marian Dogmas in mind. It is all too easy to read in retrospect the fathers as supporters of ideas really introduced much later in the Church history.
 
Indifferently said:
Yes of course they matter. How am I supposed to interpret the Bible exactly - just sit there and hope the Holy Spirit tells me its true meaning? Or read learned theologians, doctors and fathers of the Church and try to establish the universal consensus. The Vicentian canon, ‘that which was believed everywhere, always and by all’, that is , the guide to the authentic Faith, is central to my understanding, and therefore, the Church Fathers are very important.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. the early Reformers themselves had much more respect for the ECFs then todays evangelicals do.
 
Attejohannes said:
The fathers are respected and studied but not considered Infallible or authoritative. After all, most of them lived hundreds of years after Christ & Apostles, and did not have any direct access to their teachings. A father living in the third century may look to us like a representative of the Early Church, while in reality he was as much distanced from the apostolic age as we are from George Washington or Napoleon.

Regarding the development of the doctrin, the quite earliest fathers seem to be the most reticient of certain doctrinal points that started to flourish centuries later. When St. Irenaeus write a couple of sentences ( among the volumes of text he produced) comparing the Virgin and Eve, he probably did not have all the four Marian Dogmas in mind. It is all too easy to read in retrospect the fathers as supporters of ideas really introduced much later in the Church history.
Click to expand...
Interesting take. So someone who lived a 100 or so years after Christ does not have authority to establish doctrine but a monk in the 1500s does? That is if you believe Luther had authority to change Church doctrine.

The bolded section makes me go hmmmmm lol
 
cajunhillbilly said:
I agree with this. the early Reformers themselves had much more respect for the ECFs then todays evangelicals do.
Click to expand...
Could it be a lack of understanding of the history of Christianity? Many of my Protestant friends, mainly Baptist and Evangelical, know nothing of the Church Fathers. They were simply never taught about them.
 
aidanbradypop said:
How much do the Early Church Fathers play a part in your faith or denomination?

Does your faith value their teachings?

Have you ever really heard much about them? (I was surprised when I found out many people know nothing about them)
Click to expand...
Not something I’ve thought about much til you posted this. I enjoy the early writings. Lectionary Central includes sermons from this period at their website for each of the Sunday readings, and I’ve recently picked up several volumes of the Ancient Christian Commentary. I’ve been reading more of Schaff’s collections of ante-Nicene fathers.

The early church fathers have no more authority in my church/faith than writers of any other era, and what authority any has is tied to how they line up with scripture. Trying to find more specific information this morning, I ran across what looks like a good article. A couple of excerpts from that, and the link, are below.

Anglican theologian John Jewell wrote:

Some things I believe and some things they write I cannot believe. Cyprian was the doctor of the Church, yet he was deceived; Jerome was a doctor of the Church, yet he was deceived; Augustine was a doctor of the Church, yet he wrote a book of retractions. He acknowledged that he was deceived.

Another 16th century Anglican, William Whitaker, wrote:

. . . I am far from approving the opinion of those who think the testimonies of the fathers should be rejected or despised. . . However, we must take heed that we do not, with the papists, ascribe too much to the fathers; but use our rights and liberty, when we read them, examining all their sayings by the rule of Scripture, receiving them when they agree with it, but freely and with their good leave rejecting them whenever they exhibit marks of discrepancy. anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2010/11/early-church-fathers-in-historic.html

That same article noted that there were periods in the history of the church when some Anglicans took a less critical view of the early church fathers. This includes the 17th century Caroline divines and the 19th century Tractarians. As you know, there are many kinds of Anglican, and the leanings of the author of that article are apparent when he writes, “a fascination with the early Church Fathers and an uncritical approach to their writings has led the church away from the teaching of the Bible and the Reformation and into error.”
 
The New Testament was not assembled formally until around AD 390 or thereabouts when St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Gregory the Great were tasked to do so.

In the meanwhile, we had the Early Church Fathers, many of whom were in communication with the original Apostles and wrote down what they were taught by the Apostles, themselves.
 
aidanbradypop said:
Interesting take. So someone who lived a 100 or so years after Christ does not have authority to establish doctrine but a monk in the 1500s does? That is if you believe Luther had authority to change Church doctrine.

The bolded section makes me go hmmmmm lol
Click to expand...
Well, I think that the burden of proof ( regarding for example St. Irenaeus and Mariology) is on the side of those who think that when comparing the Virgin and Eve he really implied the immaculate conception and assumption.

The Lutheran view is, of course, that when an opinion of a fifth century Pope is in contrasted with the written word of an apostle, the opinion of the pope is of no value what so ever.
 
Attejohannes said:
Well, I think that the burden of proof ( regarding for example St. Irenaeus and Mariology) is on the side of those who think that when comparing the Virgin and Eve he really implied the immaculate conception and assumption.

The Lutheran view is, of course, that when an opinion of a fifth century Pope is in contrasted with the written word of an apostle, the opinion of the pope is of no value what so ever.
Click to expand...
I ask again…why no authority to those that lived only a few years after Christ but give it to a monk who lived in the 1500s?

Irenaeus: Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, “Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).
 
aidanbradypop said:
When we read on the Early Church Fathers and their writings, we can see where they stood on matters such as the Immaculate Conception, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the RP in the Eucharist.

How much do the Early Church Fathers play a part in your faith or denomination?

Does your faith value their teachings?

Have you ever really heard much about them? (I was surprised when I found out many people know nothing about them)
Click to expand...
Interesting topic.

I’d say that reading the Fathers is a very good experience, and can be a valuable aid to one’s faith and sense of perspective, though some discernment is required.

Father William Jurgens’ The Faith Of The Early Fathers is a fantastic place to get started.
 
I answer the again. Those contemporaries of Christ and Apostles have authority. All their followers have a certain historical interest, but no authority.

Luther is not an authority to me in the sence that I ought to agree with everything he said or wrote. I do not subscribe to much of his Mariology. Nor to his antisemitism, although in that aspect he had a perfect consensus with notable fathers like John Chrysostom or Cyril of Alexandria. Luther’s service to Christianity was his " back to basis" approach. After him nobody ( including the Catholics ) read the Scriptures using the exaggerated allegorical interpretation a la Origen, and ( from the doctrinally Lutheran standpoint) he was ( and is ) a great comforter of a sick soul ( but that would deserve a separate thread, and would not be of interest to Catholics).

Without going further along these lines, I just remind you that in the beginning you made a question and you got an answer. You obviously do not agree with it ( as I guessed you would not), but I understood that there was no intention to start an argument on this point.
 
Attejohannes said:
I answer the again. Those contemporaries of Christ and Apostles have authority. All their followers have a certain historical interest, but no authority.

Luther is not an authority to me in the sence that I ought to agree with everything he said or wrote. I do not subscribe to much of his Mariology. Nor to his antisemitism, although in that aspect he had a perfect consensus with notable fathers like John Chrysostom or Cyril of Alexandria. Luther’s service to Christianity was his " back to basis" approach. After him nobody ( including the Catholics ) read the Scriptures using the exaggerated allegorical interpretation a la Origen, and ( from the doctrinally Lutheran standpoint) he was ( and is ) a great comforter of a sick soul ( but that would deserve a separate thread, and would not be of interest to Catholics).

Without going further along these lines, I just remind you that in the beginning you made a question and you got an answer. You obviously do not agree with it ( as I guessed you would not), but I understood that there was no intention to start an argument on this point.
Click to expand...
And I thank you for your answer. 👍

I was just trying to gain insight is all. Thanks
 
Okay, I’m Catholic but here are my thoughts for all their worth.

The Early Church Fathers give us a unique hermeneutical and traditional milieu that we lack today. They were so close to Christ and the Apostles (especially some, like Clement, Ignatius or Irenaeus) that what they have to say about the faith is very likely more on the mark than anything we can say in the 21st century.

In fact, I think it’s a kind of arrogance to say that the Early Church Fathers, who wrote quite frankly about the Real Presence, Church authority, and so on, were wrong whereas we - separated by hundreds, if not a couple of thousand, years are more likely correct.

The Church Fathers are like our magnifying glass on Scripture and Tradition. To lose or disregard them is to lose or disregard the intricacy of the faith.
 
The Coptic Orthodox Church is the Church of the Fathers. Not only the Desert Fathers (and Mothers) which imprinted so much of the character of the Church, but also the greatest among the minds of the early Church, such as St. Athanasius the Apostolic, St. Cyril, and even those who never made it to sainthood, such as Origen (I think any unbiased look at his work must say that, despite the controversies attached to some of it, he was certainly among the most brilliant biblical scholars who ever lived…and he happened to be the dean of the School at Alexandria for a time). We still read these today, and many others. Also, I have noticed that Copts do not stop at the early fathers, but also tend to be very well-read (or at least more so than many in other churches) in their medieval writers, such as Severus al-Ashmunein. Ibn Kabar, etc. This also helps the sense of continuity with the early church, as it can be demonstrated definitively that what we are doing and believing has been carried throughout the whole time from St. Mark in Alexandria, down to today.

So, yes, I would say that the Fathers are very important for us. 🙂 If we did not have them, and read them and treasure them, we wouldn’t be the Church that we are today.
 
aidanbradypop said:
When we read on the Early Church Fathers and their writings, we can see where they stood on matters such as the Immaculate Conception, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the RP in the Eucharist.

How much do the Early Church Fathers play a part in your faith or denomination?

Does your faith value their teachings?

Have you ever really heard much about them? (I was surprised when I found out many people know nothing about them)
Click to expand...
  1. Quite a bit. I mean they are the foundation of the Church’s understanding of many different ideas. Without them, we don’t have the Scholastics. And especially since Vatican II, with a new emphasis placed on the Early Church Fathers (Ressourcement) because of the Nouvelle Theologie movement.
  2. Absolutely. Ever since Aquinas and Bonaventure we’ve heard how great Scholasticism is and how brilliant Aquinas was, yet in Aeterni Patris, the Encyclical that arguably gives the most praise to Scholasticism out of any Papal writing, we (almost ironically) hear said about St. Thomas Aquinas “that he is worthy of the honor which is bestowed on the greatest Doctors of the Church, on Gregory and Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome”. Even after the High Middle Age’s Scholasticism and the Spanish revival Scholasticism, IOW centuries of Scholasticism dominating theology in the Church, the Church has to say that Aquinas deserves to be venerated at the same level as the Latin Fathers, as if he isn’t given as much respect as them! When we consider that, it is pretty clear how much the Church values the Fathers; just as much as she values the Angelic Doctor. And no one will dispute that the Catholic Church holds very highly Aquinas.
  3. Yep. Probably wouldn’t be Catholic without knowing about them. I’m reading City of God right now. 🙂 Gotta love St. Augustine! :):heaven:❤️
 
aidanbradypop said:
Interesting take. So someone who lived a 100 or so years after Christ does not have authority to establish doctrine but a monk in the 1500s does? That is if you believe Luther had authority to change Church doctrine.

The bolded section makes me go hmmmmm lol
Click to expand...
Lovely:D
 
Attejohannes said:
The fathers are respected and studied but not considered Infallible or authoritative. After all, most of them lived hundreds of years after Christ & Apostles, and did not have any direct access to their teachings. A father living in the third century may look to us like a representative of the Early Church, while in reality he was as much distanced from the apostolic age as we are from George Washington or Napoleon.
Click to expand...
This makes sense to me. I don’t consider them infallible either. In addition I’ve read some non Catholic interpretations of ECFs which differ from Catholic interpretation for me not to at least take pause with regard to their writings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top