Where to begin with Chrysostom?

[GloriousOrder]

Dear friends ,

I am just entering a huge crisis in my heart about the role of Popes, Bishops, Metropolitans, Patriarchs, etc. in the Church. Throughout history, many things crop up in East and West that seem contradictory. What I want to try to do is read the Fathers and Doctors of the Church who lived anterior to Augustine, whose life seems to be the “beginning of the end” of unity. If I can sift out some of the distinctions he introduced into theology that eventually split East and West, it will be easier to know the true uniting elements of our glorious faith. Imagine a world without fixation on Filioque, Supremacy, Authority, Jurisdiction, Grace, Mariology, and Dualism! Imagine our glorious Church united on Earth as much as it is in Heaven!

Someone recommended St. John Chrysostom to me first, because I love the ideal of preaching. I also love the strength of stoical, heroic bishops from the past, who really had grand zeal for Christ our Lord. Chrysostom is my first Church Father to read, after St. Irenaeus (just converted in April from total atheism), so I need to know where to start with such a great saint and giant of the Church! My own devotion is very specially to the Holy Trinity above any other ‘attributes’ of God, or any other saint, and I find good, strong mysticism to be very invigorating. He wrote endless sermons on Matthew, John, Acts, and Genesis… along with treatises on the Priest, and on a billion things. What to do!?

 

[ciero]

Dear friends ,

I am just entering a huge crisis in my heart about the role of Popes, Bishops, Metropolitans, Patriarchs, etc. in the Church. Throughout history, many things crop up in East and West that seem contradictory. What I want to try to do is read the Fathers and Doctors of the Church who lived anterior to Augustine, whose life seems to be the “beginning of the end” of unity. If I can sift out some of the distinctions he introduced into theology that eventually split East and West, it will be easier to know the true uniting elements of our glorious faith. Imagine a world without fixation on**** Filioque****, Supremacy, Authority, Jurisdiction, Grace, Mariology, and Dualism! Imagine our glorious Church united on Earth as much as it is in Heaven!

Someone recommended St. John Chrysostom to me first, because I love the ideal of preaching. I also love the strength of stoical, heroic bishops from the past, who really had grand zeal for Christ our Lord. Chrysostom is my first Church Father to read, after St. Irenaeus (just converted in April from total atheism), so I need to know where to start with such a great saint and giant of the Church! My own devotion is very specially to the Holy Trinity above any other ‘attributes’ of God, or any other saint, and I find good, strong mysticism to be very invigorating. He wrote endless sermons on Matthew, John, Acts, and Genesis… along with treatises on the Priest, and on a billion things. What to do!?

Now I’m no fan of St. Augustine…but why would you think he is responsible for all the things you mentioned above?

 

[Hesychios]

I wouldn’t know what to suggest as a starting point to reading St John. There is a lot out there.

Saint John Chrysostom was actually a contemporary of Saint Augustine, not before him in any significant chronological way. In the generation just before and nearly contemporary were the Cappadocian Fathers.

If one wants to go 100 years earlier it might be a good Idea to read St Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian (as a seminal thinker in the west), one could also read Origen or the collections of desert fathers.

 

[GloriousOrder]

Now I’m no fan of St. Augustine…but why would you think he is responsible for all the things you mentioned above?

Well, his explication of the Holy Trinity in De Trinitate has the first inklings of the “Western spiration”, as it were. In describing the Holy Ghost as the “love that exists between the Father and the Son”, there is a double principle of generation. Filioque pretty much follows easily from this. Now, with regards to grace and sin, Augustine was decidedly a pessimist and a big dualist. Was it not this saint who said that sexual intercourse is something to be “descended into” with only the greatest sorrow? His idea of concupiscence and the generation of original sin by procreation is very characteristic of him. He was big on what Calvinists might call irresistible grace, and didn’t seem to mind predestination.

I want to compare him to pre-400/430 bishops and doctors and Fathers.

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

Try Ignatius of Antioch…
He sounds both Eastern & Western IMO

 

[MarcoPolo]

The more I learn about St. John Chrysostom, the more I like him, and the more of his brilliance and simplicity I see.

One of my favorites, if you are looking for works that unite the East and West, is his treatment On the Priesthood. Just the other day I read the part in Book III, paragraphs 5-6 on the true power and authority of the priesthood. Great stuff.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Well, his explication of the Holy Trinity in De Trinitate has the first inklings of the “Western spiration”, as it were. In describing the Holy Ghost as the “love that exists between the Father and the Son”, there is a double principle of generation. Filioque pretty much follows easily from this. Now, with regards to grace and sin, Augustine was decidedly a pessimist and a big dualist. Was it not this saint who said that sexual intercourse is something to be “descended into” with only the greatest sorrow? His idea of concupiscence and the generation of original sin by procreation is very characteristic of him. He was big on what Calvinists might call irresistible grace, and didn’t seem to mind predestination.

I want to compare him to pre-400/430 bishops and doctors and Fathers.

Actually, “double principle of generation” in Augustine is only there when we want to see it there (i.e. love being characteristic of all Three Persons of the Trinity).

Augustine himself admitted he was no expert on the subject and he is no Cappadocian Father when it comes to Triadology.

His “dualism” certainly comes from his earlier flirtation with Manichaeism.

Alex

 

[ciero]

Well, his explication of the Holy Trinity in De Trinitate has the first inklings of the “Western spiration”, as it were. In describing the Holy Ghost as the “love that exists between the Father and the Son”, there is a double principle of generation. Filioque pretty much follows easily from this. Now, with regards to grace and sin, Augustine was decidedly a pessimist and a big dualist. Was it not this saint who said that sexual intercourse is something to be “descended into” with only the greatest sorrow? His idea of concupiscence and the generation of original sin by procreation is very characteristic of him. He was big on what Calvinists might call irresistible grace, and didn’t seem to mind predestination.

I want to compare him to pre-400/430 bishops and doctors and Fathers.

I think you are reading this into St. John!

 

[GloriousOrder]

I think you are reading this into St. John!

This is St. Augustine I’m talking about, in the bold.

St. John looks to be very good, so I’ve just started off with his homilies on my favourite Gospel: St. John’s!

 

[DL82]

On the deeper question of the OP’s feelings of conflict about the role of authority in the Church, and the way in which doctrines ‘developed’ over time, I can also suggest reading Bl. John Henry Newman’s ‘On the Development of Christian Doctrine’ - written to convince a Protestant audience of the authenticity of the doctrinal developments which took place in the Catholic Church pre-schism (the first 9 centuries of the Christian Churches), he addresses the issue of Papal authority, as well as a range of other common criticisms as to the direction taken by the Church in those early years. It is well worth a read.

 

[JER7177]

I am by no means a scholar in the area of Patristic theology but have read enough of St. Augustine of Hippo and St. John Chrysostom to make a quick comment. It is true that St. Augustine held/taught things regarding grace, sin, predestination that could be construed as problematic. But one has to remember that he was a 4th-5th century father, very early on in the scope and developement of Catholic theology. He was bound to make questionable assumptions/conclusions in the field. Later theologians and scholars have nuanced or corrected these “errors.” But, on the other hand, cannot be denied his absolutely unique and indespensible role in the developement and understanding of the Catholic Faith! Easterners label him as introducing distinctively “western” concepts to theology. So what! He was a western Christian! The west, unlike the east, was not as drwn into the political and heretical drama the east was CONSTANTLY embracing and dealing with. The west grew more and more over time, cautious and distrusting of the drama that perpetuated itself in the east. The west dealt with situations, perceptions, and influences that formed a particular point of view. No more or less valid than in the east. Just different perspectives. Western notions within theology began to develope (not invent) with time. Just as valid, but they were interpreted through the scope of the western mind. This is the environment of thought St. Augustine grew under. But, in mere matters of spirituality, St. Augustine must be read, and as Fr. Seraphim Rose of the Russian Orthodox Church has stated emphatically in a book on the matter, the east must dump its prejudice and unmeritted disdain for St. Augustine in the matter of spiritual importance.

As for St. John Chrysostom: I want to dispel a misconception people often make. Who should we go with in matters of theology between the two? Who was more orthodox in their theology? The answer: BOTH. The Church in Her authority and mission have crowned both men with the glorious title of Doctor of the Church! St. John is a powerful preacher and anyone who reads his sermons on the spiritual life and his commentaries on the Scred Scriptures and is not moved to love God more as a result is dead! He rocks! But, from a Roman Catholic perspective, I must admit that he himself has certain, although few, points of questionability in his theology. Take for example the sin/sinlessness of Mary. As a Roman we believe that Mary, from the moment of her conception was exempted premeditatively from contracting the stain of original sin. This is founded in the ancient titles of Mary as being the New Eve (never under Satan’s possession), the New Ark (as the old was pure enough to slay men who touched it, how much more pure the new?), All Holy, etc. In St. John it is alluded, whether he emphatically held or not, that their was a potenial that Mary could have contracted the primordial/ancestral sin of Adam. Now, as the East holds, but it is still debated, Mary after briefly contracting the primordial/ancestral sin of Adam, was purged by God’s salvific grace. But she retained to some degree character blemishes as a result of having some contact with sin, even ever so brief. The argument has been made that St. John Chrysostom held to some of these points and that the east’s stubborn adherence to such notions issue forth, to some degree, from St. John since he is often invoke as an authority to make the points. No Father is free from the scrutany of later generations.

All I am saying is take the Fathers, especially St. Augustine for what they were, anaylize the context of their lives and you will see why they often held what they did. If they were in error, I would make the assumption that Mother Church has corrected their points of error. Don’t pit St. Augustine against the east, other Fathers, or impute to him the nature of the points that divided east and west. There is so much more to it than that. The east was a hotbed of theological debate and decent. The east fostered and nutured the marriage of theological poistions with anti-Latin political regimes. The divergence of the use of Latin and Greek as vernacular language. The false accusation of the west as “inventing” doctrine (i.e. - filioque), even though you can find the doctrine taught in every major eastern father.

Not too scholarly but that’s my take.

 

[Mojo674]

But, from a Roman Catholic perspective, I must admit that he himself has certain, although few, points of questionability in his theology. Take for example the sin/sinlessness of Mary. As a Roman we believe that Mary, from the moment of her conception was exempted premeditatively from contracting the stain of original sin. This is founded in the ancient titles of Mary as being the New Eve (never under Satan’s possession), the New Ark (as the old was pure enough to slay men who touched it, how much more pure the new?), All Holy, etc. In St. John it is alluded, whether he emphatically held or not, that their was a potenial that Mary could have contracted the primordial/ancestral sin of Adam. Now, as the East holds, but it is still debated, Mary after briefly contracting the primordial/ancestral sin of Adam, was purged by God’s salvific grace. But she retained to some degree character blemishes as a result of having some contact with sin, even ever so brief. The argument has been made that St. John Chrysostom held to some of these points and that the east’s stubborn adherence to such notions issue forth, to some degree, from St. John since he is often invoke as an authority to make the points. No Father is free from the scrutany of later generations.

Although what St. John Chrysostom mentions here is not questionable because it is a belief held in many of the Eastern Churches whether Orthodox or Catholic. The East does not say that she was completely free from Ancestral Sin, but rather it is explained that when she said “I believe” that whatever needed to occur did. She was purified at that moment, although she still had to undergo death, she underwent true dormition. Death is only an imperfect dormition, because body is separated from soul, in true dormition nothing is separated. That is why it is called the Dormition of the Holy Theotokos in the East because she died (dormition) meaning she fell asleep and rose body and soul, because that is how it was meant to occur even in Paradise. Ancestral Sin in the East and Original Sin in the West have some quirks and differences, but in no way are they not compatible. Therefore yes in Western theology what Chrysostom says does not work, but in the East it is used because it is perfectly coherent to its theology.

 

[Mojo674]

The false accusation of the west as “inventing” doctrine (i.e. - filioque), even though you can find the doctrine taught in every major eastern father.

The reason for the rejection of the filioque was because that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was not supposed to changed after the First Council at Constantinopole. Also the procession is slightly different between the East and West in terms of the Trinity. Again they are compatible, but there is a slight difference between (and) and (through).