Question, are Saints Athanasius and Cyril only Greek Fathers? I always got the impression that they are switch hitters.
At the very least they should be considered Coptic Fathers, since they were known to be Copts. Ironically, St. Athanasius was far more respected by the Latins in his day than he was by the “Greeks”, as he stood in stark opposition to the Arianism in the East.Hello,
Question, are Saints Athanasius and Cyril only Greek Fathers? I always got the impression that they are switch hitters.
Yeah. The designation of Latin or Greek Father is not of what particular Church you belong to, or what theology you ascribe to, etc. (though they usually coincide). But the designation by the Catholic Church is determined by what language you wrote in. If you wrote in Greek, you were a Greek Father, and if you wrote in Latin, you were a Latin Father.At the very least they should be considered Coptic Fathers, since they were known to be Copts. Ironically, St. Athanasius was far more respected by the Latins in his day than he was by the “Greeks”, as he stood in stark opposition to the Arianism in the East.
St. Athanasius and his theological writings remain very influential in the West, and always have, though he’s not technically a Latin Father.
Another point that is often forgotten is that St. Augustine, though he wrote in Latin because that was the “universal” language he preferred, was not himself a Latin. In his writings he refers a number of times to the differences in custom and practice between his people and Rome/Europe (he was African).
History is a funny thing indeed.
Peace and God bless!
It is one thing to use St. Athanasius or St. Cyril as a source for support of a doctrine, it is another to follow their way of thinking. Not only did they speak different languages but they also thought differently in theology. The east has always thought more synodally while the west has been more unified. The east has always been more apophatic(they tend to say God is absolutely beyond any of our thoughts and undefinable) in their theological approach while the west has always been more cataphatic(more into definitions). You could call St. Ephrem or St. James of Sarug your fathers but you do not utilize their theology as they wrote them. You tend to see them and see, ‘St Ephrem says Mary is Immaculate, pure and sinless.’ ‘St. Ephrem says that we have free will.’ Or you might see them as battling against heresies in the early church. Meanwhile you do not even realize his whole approach to the subject by using paradox and symbolism. He does not define a subject. He sets up two opposite points or a paradox and he explains it in that way, or he will use symbolism. Maronites and Chaldeans and other Syriac Christians follow St. Ephrem in his apophatic way of theology. The west does not. So, in a sense you can say they are universal fathers but ultimately their understanding is specific to the Christians of the Syrian tradition. Same with the Greek fathers and the Latin fathers, although the Greeks and Syrians are extremely close in many ways.Hello,
Question, are Saints Athanasius and Cyril only Greek Fathers? I always got the impression that they are switch hitters.
I don’t know how you can say that definitions are only a part of the Latin tradition and have no part in the East. Have you studied the early Church Councils. They made very precise definitions. Have you read the Nicene Creed - it is very specific in its choice of words. Read Saint Cyril of Alexandria - he pretty much defined an entire vocabulary in his combat with the Nestorian heretics.
True, the main problem is that many will claim the Father as “belonging to their tradition” simply based on their language. Calling St. Athanasius a “Greek Father”, for example, diminishes the fact that his impact was likely greater on the Latin tradition than it was on the Byzantine (or any of the other non-Latin traditions except the Coptic it seems). I know it’s all semantics, but words can cause odd impressions on people.Hello,
Yeah. The designation of Latin or Greek Father is not of what particular Church you belong to, or what theology you ascribe to, etc. (though they usually coincide). But the designation by the Catholic Church is determined by what language you wrote in. If you wrote in Greek, you were a Greek Father, and if you wrote in Latin, you were a Latin Father.
Although, again, I remember hearing that Saint Athanasius did at least some writing in Coptic, Greek, Latin, and Syriac. He must surely be a switch hitter.
Was St. Ignatius’s view of Christianity somehow deficient then since he did not have definitions of the Trinity? No. The definitions came when heresies came. Definitions are not something to look for. The fathers did not hope for new definitions and they did not constantly try to define new things. They only defined the Trinity because they had to in order to destroy heresies. If arianism never came neither would our definition of the Trinity.