Favorite Early Church Father?

[Melchior_1]

I know, I know, it’ll be hard to narrow down the list. But who is YOUR favorite patristic writer (and why)?

When I started getting into apologetics I started reading some of St. Justin the Martyr and enjoyed his writing style and obviously the content. In my mind he is one of the most important apologists we have ever had, specifically when he speaks about the Eucharist. His reasoned approach and intellectual writing appeals to me to this day.

St. Irenaeus, as his “Against Heresies” is an excellent piece which refutes one of the main heresies at the time (and a lot of it is still relevent today!).

Lately though, I find myself reading a lot of St. Jerome’s commentaries and rebuttals. The man was simply brilliant. An added bonus is when his pateince wore thin he would unleash the hog and decimate people. An example;

*“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this in order to condemn marriage; for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage. . . . You say Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a Virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock.

“We have played the rhetorician hand have carried ourselves somewhat after the manner of platform orators. But it was you, Helvidius, who made us do it; for though the Gospel shines today in fullest splendor you would have it that virgins and married women share an equal glory. And since I know you, having been bested by the truth, will resort to disparagement of my wife and to bad-mouthing my character,-little ladies generally act in this fashion; and, when their masters have bested them, they sit in the corner an wish them evil, -I only tell you in advance that your railings will redound to my glory, when you laerate me with the same mouth you used in your detraction of Mary. The Lord’s servant and the Lord’s Mother will have an equal portion of your canine eloquence.*

Both educational AND entertaining!

 

[Milesius]

St. John Chrysostom because of his great zeal and brilliant teachings.

 

[super_squirrel]

St. Ignatius of Antioch

It is hard to narrow down a specific reason, but mostly it is because of the historical evidence St. Ignatius shows for the practices of the Church.

In the year 110 (approx.), St. John the Divine isn’t even cold in the grave and the writings of Ignatius show that the Church already had in full swing the liturgy, three-fold ministry of Deacon, Priest, Bishop, and the obedience that is to be shown to these men. St. Ignatius essentially tells us that the clergy should be treated as though they were Jesus himself, which would be nearing idolatry if the concept of Apostolic Succession wasn’t widely accepted by these folks. St. Ignatius also shows us the belief of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, even going so far as to suggest that it is only those with heretical beliefs that deny it.

Far too often Evangelicals like to say it “wasn’t until Constatine” that these “abominations” crept into the Church, so it is nice to see primary source evidence from two hundred years before Constantine that refutes this misconception.

The only problem that I have with St. Ignatius is that, though he does speak very highly of the Roman Church in his letter to them, he is completely silent in mentioning anything that even hints at a “Pope” or Papal Infallibility. It is ironic that, with seven letters written on his way to certain death, he forgets to make any mention of being obedient to the Supreme Pontiff, either to the Bishops of the Churches or to the laity.

 

[Carlan]

St. Ignatius of Antioch

It is hard to narrow down a specific reason, but mostly it is because of the historical evidence St. Ignatius shows for the practices of the Church.

In the year 110 (approx.), St. John the Divine isn’t even cold in the grave and the writings of Ignatius show that the Church already had in full swing the liturgy, three-fold ministry of Deacon, Priest, Bishop, and the obedience that is to be shown to these men. St. Ignatius essentially tells us that the clergy should be treated as though they were Jesus himself, which would be nearing idolatry if the concept of Apostolic Succession wasn’t widely accepted by these folks. St. Ignatius also shows us the belief of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, even going so far as to suggest that it is only those with heretical beliefs that deny it.

Far too often Evangelicals like to say it “wasn’t until Constatine” that these “abominations” crept into the Church, so it is nice to see primary source evidence from two hundred years before Constantine that refutes this misconception.

The only problem that I have with St. Ignatius is that, though he does speak very highly of the Roman Church in his letter to them, he is completely silent in mentioning anything that even hints at a “Pope” or Papal Infallibility. It is ironic that, with seven letters written on his way to certain death, he forgets to make any mention of being obedient to the Supreme Pontiff, either to the Bishops of the Churches or to the laity.

When I first read the question, I thought of St Justin , for basicly , your same reasons, The Eucharist.
Peace, Carlan

 

[JohnDamian]

For myself; St Augustine is my favorite early Church Father; for his defence of Papal authority; original sin and just war.