Reading the Church Fathers discussion
General
>
Preparing for a Journey with the Fathers
date
newest »
newest »
Nemo, I asked the Orthodox priest from my bookgroup, Father Michael, his opinion on the 38-volume Early Church Fathers and here is his response:"That’s the classic translation of many of the Church Fathers (at least the popular ones in the late 19th century—the series omits some that have been discovered in the last 150 years and others who were just not popular at Oxford in the late nineteenth century—for example, many of the Fathers in the Philokalia are not included). The print is very small and the English is a little stilted, but it is the set of Church Fathers in English you will find in most libraries. I have a couple of the volumes. As you can see, it would take years and years to read it all."
As the Philokalia is secondary only to the Bible in the Orthodox tradition, it concerns me that so many important Fathers might be left out. The daily readings would be great, with the above in mind. Now I'm curious as to which ones are missing.
And here are Father Michael's comments on the approach he would recommend:"I think a great place to start is with the Sayings of The Desert Fathers—just because it is so inspiring. Then I would go with the Apostolic Fathers—that’s the generation that either knew the Apostles or knew someone who personally knew the Apostles (first couple hundred years). Then St. Vladimir Seminary Press has a popular Patristic series. Any book in that series is great. I have most of them. The translations are easy to read—unlike older translations that you find in the Oxford translations of the 19th century."
and
"O yes, the best starter book on the Orthodox tradition for a thinking person, in my opinion, is The Orthodox Church by Kalistos (Timothy) Ware. "
I had started the book by Kalistos (Timothy) Ware a few months ago and was very impressed.
Cleo wrote: "Nemo, I asked the Orthodox priest from my bookgroup, Father Michael, his opinion on the 38-volume Early Church Fathers and here is his response:"...As you can see, it would take years and years to read it all."
.."
I've added Philokalia and the Sayings of the Desert Fathers to the group bookshelf.
If one reads 7 pages a day, it would take 7 years to finish the 38-volume set. Not a light undertaking, but worthwhile.
Cleo,Is there any chance that Father Michael might be willing to lead or join our discussions of the Fathers? We need all the help we can get. :)
Nemo wrote: "Cleo,Is there any chance that Father Michael might be willing to lead or join our discussions of the Fathers? We need all the help we can get. :)"
Well, he's very busy but I can certainly ask him. Failing that, I'm sure if we have any questions (as long as there aren't copious numbers of them), he'd be happy to answer. He's very knowledgeable; he usually can refer to Scripture without needing a Bible, knows Greek and Latin and is strongly versed in history, so he'd be a wonderful resource.
Nemo et al,Father Michael answered and he does not have time to participate in the group but he would be happy to answer any questions we might have if I email him. Unfortunate but kind of what I expected. :-(
Thank you, Cleo. I really appreciate that Father Michael is gracious enough to offer to answer our questions.I suppose we can just post them here, and let you decide when and how to pass them along. :)
For starters, which versions of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers and Philokalia would he recommend?
If he were to read a book by one of the Fathers for the first time, how would he approach it?
Cleo wrote: "Nemo et al,Father Michael answered and he does not have time to participate in the group but he would be happy to answer any questions we might have if I email him. Unfortunate but kind of what I..."
I asked one of our priests, Fr. Barnabas, if he would be willing to answer occasional questions, and he is more than happy to do so. History is one of his passions, and folks often joke that when he is presiding at Mass the homily will be a history lesson.
Kerstin wrote: "History is one of his passions, and folks often joke that when he is presiding at Mass the homily will be a history lesson."LOL. History seems to be one of your passions too, Kerstin. Is he one of your influences?
Speaking of history lessons, I just found out that a very small portion of the text in volume 2 of the ANF series is in Latin. The Stromata or Miscellanies bk 3 by Clement of Alexandria, where he discourses on issues of celibacy and marriage. The editors considered it "wise" to leave the text untranslated.
Nemo wrote: "For starters, which versions of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers and Philokalia would he recommend? If he were to read a book by one of the Fathers for the first time, how would he approach it? ..."
Here is Fr. Michael's response:
"The edition of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers that I recommend is by Benedicta Ward. There is only one edition of the Philokalia in English--volume two is probably the easiest place to start.
Most of the Church Fathers are very difficult to get into without some guidance. It helps a great deal having insight into the context, the issues, and the rhetorical style. Therefore, I suggest that you look at the Popular Patristic series by St. Vladimir Seminary Press. Each (relatively cheap paperback) book comes with a good introduction. You can go to their website and browse and find one that interests you. Each Father not only has his own voice, but each work is addressed to a unique audience and has a specific purpose. So be careful not to get blown away by something that seems outrageous, on the one hand, or to become dogmatic about something that seems profoundly insightful. It's the whole tradition together that we must listen to. Each Father carries a few notes in the overall symphony, and each must be understood in the light of the whole tradition.
Fr. Michael
I've read Benedicta Ward's The Sayings of the Desert Fathers and enjoyed it immensely!
Thanks to Fr. Michael for the kind words of wisdom and to Cleo for sharing. :)Speaking as someone outside the Catholic and Orthodox churches, I find the word "tradition" mystifying. It is often referenced during discussions on interpretations of biblical and patristic texts, but the word carries no definite meaning to me -- how does one interpret a text in light of the tradition?
Nemo wrote: "Speaking as someone outside the Catholic and Orthodox churches, I find the word "tradition" mystifying. It is often referenced during discussions on interpretations of biblical and patristic texts, but the word carries no definite meaning to me -- how does one interpret a text in light of the tradition?"In everyday language we use the word tradition more as a synonym for custom.
The word "Tradition" in the life of the Church is rooted in Divine Revelation and the transmission of faith from Jesus to the Apostles both orally and written.
For these kinds of questions and definitions I find going to the Catechism of the Catholic Church is easiest. I am sure it is also available online, where the entire section can be read with all the footnotes.
(77) "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them 'their own position of teaching authority.' Indeed, the apostolic preaching, which expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.
(78) This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture , though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, " the Church, in her doctrine, life, and worship perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes. The sayings of the holy Fathers are witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer"
(83) Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial tradtions
The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hand on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical, or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's magisterium.
The word "Tradition" is almost like a jargon -- its meaning is elementary to people who use it, but mystifying to others.From the paragraphs quoted above, I can get some idea what Tradition is not -- it is not the Church, not the Apostles, not the Scripture, not the Holy Spirit, not the customs nor practices in the churches,-- but I still don't know what it is, and, more to the point, how one relates to "tradition" in practice, how one interprets the Fathers in light of the tradition.
I do not know if this will help, but here is my definition of tradition. Tradition are those teachings and beliefs which have been handed down to the faithful by the apostles and their successors.
An example of "tradition" would be the belief that the apostle Peter was crucified upside down.Another example of tradition would be the Apostles Creed.
(Someone please correct me if my definition and thinking are wrong on this.)
I know, the term can be a bit elusive. Heritage may be a good synonym. Let me try from another angle:
In the end Tradition centers around the Deposit of Faith and its faithful transmission through the ages - in whichever form this may be. The unaltered message is of importance, not the medium. The only reason the Church exists is to be the messenger, to bring Christ to the people. This also implies that being the messenger she has no authority to change the message. The teaching authority of the Church, the Magisterium (comprising the collective knowledge of all bishops through the centuries), exists for the sole purpose of preserving the message, i.e., the Tradition.
When one looks upon the clash-points with the prevailing culture up and down the centuries into the present, Tradition is always at the heart of it.
Phew, I glad you're part of the group, Kerstin. :-) That is an excellent explanation and, for me, very helpful.
Kerstin wrote: "I know, the term can be a bit elusive. Heritage may be a good synonym. Let me try from another angle:
In the end Tradition centers around the Deposit of Faith and its faithful transmission throug..."
If I understand it correctly, Tradition is distinct from the Gospel, the Word, the Holy Spirit, and the Scripture, but, what remains unaltered through the ages apart from those?
This question is related to one of the controversies between Catholics and Protestants: tradition vs sola scriptura. John Calvin made a very clear, though not quite compelling, argument for the latter in Institutes of the Christian Religion, but the Catholic position is still hazy to me.
P.S. Like Cleo, I'm glad that we have knowledgeable Catholics in this group to share their perspectives. :)
Cleo wrote: "Phew, I glad you're part of the group, Kerstin. :-) That is an excellent explanation and, for me, very helpful."I try :)
Nemo wrote: "If I understand it correctly, Tradition is distinct from the Gospel, the Word, the Holy Spirit, and the Scripture, but, what remains unaltered through the ages apart from those? "The word ‘tradition’ comes from the Latin word tradere meaning to transmit, hand over, to give for safekeeping. What is being handed down or transmitted? Divine Revelation and/or faith.
Take the liturgy as an example of tradition. All parts of the Mass are biblical, but there is no specific “worship manual” for the Mass in the New Testament. This worship practice or structure was handed down or taught as well as practiced by the apostles and their successors and was well established by the time Justin Martyr wrote about it around 150 AD. And to this day the Mass is structurally the same the world over, though with differing cultural expressions - and that’s just the Latin Rite. The Orthodox, Coptics, etc. have their own cultural expressions, but anyone familiar with the Mass will recognize its specific structure.
Nemo wrote: "This question is related to one of the controversies between Catholics and Protestants: tradition vs sola scriptura."The implication here being tradition vs. the Bible. In short, from the Catholic perspective it isn't an either/or, but a both/and. The Bible is part of the tradition, actually, it was born from it. Jesus didn't write the Gospel, the Apostles and their disciples did. And all the writings that became the New Testament were proposed by Pope Damasus I in 382 AD. Subsequently there were three councils, one in Hippo and two in Carthage ending 419 AD which ratified what became the Bible. The biblical canon per se, the possibility of adding to or subtracting anything from the Bible, wasn't closed until the Council of Trent in the 16th century in response to the Reformation.
We have a long gap between Jesus and the existence of the Bible. The faith was transmitted just the same.
The concept of sola scriptura is really the product of a literate society. The idea of privately reading and interpreting the Scriptures guided only by the Holy Spirit. This wasn't really possible until the invention of the printing press. Besides, literacy rates were in the single digits. Most people, even many of the nobility couldn't read or write. Before the printing press Bibles had to be written manually on vellum, and if I remember correctly, one bible took the skins of about 450 sheep and cost the equivalent of $10,000...not exactly a mass market product.
Kerstin wrote: "Nemo wrote: "This question is related to one of the controversies between Catholics and Protestants: tradition vs sola scriptura."The implication here being tradition vs. the Bible. In short, fro..."
I understand and agree with you to some extent, Kerstin. But, just to put things in focus, my question is how one interprets the writings of the Church Fathers in light of tradition, as Father Michael put it. I've heard that expression before, but it's not clear to me what exactly is meant by that in practice.
I think the phrase “each must be understood in light of the whole tradition” means that when we read the Church Fathers we are to keep in mind that they are speaking with authority. The Church Fathers are given this authority through Apostolic Succession. In their writings, the Fathers were addressing questions that were not answered in sacred scripture. Jesus and the Apostles were no longer around so they invoked the Holy Spirit to guide them. In formulating their doctrine they were building upon what was known from Jesus and the Holy Scriptures. The Church fathers received this wisdom and knowledge from the Holy Spirit and this would be sacred tradition.(Once again, someone please correct me if I am wrong.)
Nemo wrote: "my question is how one interprets the writings of the Church Fathers in light of tradition, as Father Michael put it...."I'll ask him on Tuesday ....
Susan Margaret wrote: "I think the phrase “each must be understood in light of the whole tradition” means that when we read the Church Fathers we are to keep in mind that they are speaking with authority. The Church Fath..."Thank you, Susan Margaret.
You and Kerstin have brought up an important issue about Christianity that is increasingly under scrutiny, if not attack, in our time: the authority of the Apostolic Tradition and the reliability of their testimonies as recorded in the New Testament.
This is also partly why I started this group to get a better understanding of the Church Fathers.
Cleo wrote: "Nemo wrote: "my question is how one interprets the writings of the Church Fathers in light of tradition, as Father Michael put it...."I'll ask him on Tuesday ...."
Thank you, Cleo. He'll probably regret that he agreed to answering questions from this group. :)
Nemo wrote: "Thank you, Cleo. He'll probably regret that he agreed to answering questions from this group. :) . ..."Yes, I was thinking the same thing. ;-)
Cleo wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Thank you, Cleo. He'll probably regret that he agreed to answering questions from this group. :) . ..."Yes, I was thinking the same thing. ;-)"
I'm looking forward to his reply!
Okay Nemo, let me see if I can adequately "translate" Fr. Michael's answer to your question about each Church Father being understood in the light of the whole tradition. He said, take Augustine for example ...... Augustine was a lawyer who wrote in Latin which lends itself to law, therefore he had a way of looking at issues and presenting them in ways that were often legalistic given his background. So a good follow-up to Augustine might be a Greek writer like Basil the Great. The teaching of the Church Fathers represent a corral ---- there is lots of room for movement within the corral, a range of ways of looking at things. For instance, they can use a wide range of images and metaphors to explain how they understand the Holy Spirit being received. Most of the Church Fathers were bishops, so again as in the Augustine example, it's helpful to also read Church Fathers who weren't bishops but simple monks. Even though, he's recommended the The Philokalia, the Complete Text, he says that too was collected for a certain purpose. As with using Scripture out of context, so it is the same with the CF ..... they should be taken as a whole; just because Basil the Great said it, that doesn't end the conversation, it's part of the conversation. Oh, he also said because men can take certain scripture out of context to serve their purposes (which is a problem with a Bible-only approach), the Bible must be used with tradition; we must learn how each have been understood, interpreted and implied through the ages and in this context.Does my convoluted translation make any more sense?
Cleo wrote: "Okay Nemo, let me see if I can adequately "translate" Fr. Michael's answer to your question about each Church Father being understood in the light of the whole tradition...."Thank you for taking the time and trouble to translate his message, Cleo.
On the one hand, I understand the importance of context, and that each Church Father is a chapter in a great book and a note in a magnificent symphony and should not be interpreted in isolation. On the other hand, since we're reading many of the Fathers for the very first time, "tradition" has not taken form in our mind yet, how then are we to interpret the Fathers in light of it? It is like saying that unless people read this comment of mine and others yet to be made, they can't interpret your message properly.
Cleo wrote: "Okay Nemo, let me see if I can adequately "translate" Fr. Michael's answer to your question about each Church Father being understood in the light of the whole tradition. He said, take Augustine fo..."Thank you Cleo for the explanation. It helps.
Cleo wrote: "...Augustine was a lawyer who wrote in Latin which lends itself to law, therefore he had a way of looking at issues and presenting them in ways that were often legalistic given his background.."That is an interesting interpretation of Augustine. Technically, he was not a lawyer, but a professor of rhetoric (the art of speaking). Personally I think he was more logical than legalistic, and was not titled "Doctor of Grace" for being legalistic. However, he was influenced by a great legal mind in the person of Cicero, and influenced another lawyer, John Calvin.
Nemo wrote: "On the other hand, since we're reading many of the Fathers for the very first time, "tradition" has not taken form in our mind yet, how then are we to interpret the Fathers in light of it? It is like saying that unless people read this comment of mine and others yet to be made, they can't interpret your message properly. ..."You're welcome!
Well, I think people like Kerstin and perhaps other people in the group have more experience with "tradition" and her interpretation might be deeper or even simply different. Since I've had limited exposure to the tradition, I'm going to have to learn it while at the same time interacting with it. Perhaps it's similar to the metaphor of the corral that Fr. Michael used: the tradition will touch people at different levels and work on us in different ways, yet we are still part of a whole. As for the interpretation, again it will be different for everyone. I'll use an example of my recent experience with The Brothers Karamazov: I read that whole dratted book, struggling to figure out what Dostoyevsky was trying to communicate and with the Russian approach to literature and felt like I was combing through a haystack for needles. It was only when I finally finished it and looked back that all of a sudden lightbulbs started to go off like crazy and I went from never wanting to see the book again, to wanting to read it all over again. On the other hand, you appeared to engage with it immediately, yet both of our experiences give us understanding and allow us to have an interpretations that probably would have commonalities and would allow for discussion. If we see reading the Church Fathers in the same way, does my explanation help ...... sort of ..... ? ;-)
Marcus wrote: "Sounds clear to me."Oh, phew! ;-)
Susan Margaret wrote: "Thank you Cleo for the explanation. It helps. ..."You're very welcome! :-)
Nemo wrote: "That is an interesting interpretation of Augustine. Technically, he was not a lawyer, but a professor of rhetoric..."I thought that was what he said, but I could be wrong. I believe the point was that the way we see life is shaped by our training and life experience and because of Augustine's experience, it would be wise to balance him with a Father with a different (or opposite, though I hate to use that word) experience. He wasn't all all disparaging Augustine. And I'm not certain that Fr. Michael would be using the term "legalistic" in the same way you understand it, as he'll often clarify how words were understood then versus now. That said, he made no distinctions this time. That's the trouble with replaying someone's words and then trying to discuss them; I'm not certain if it makes issues clearer or more muddled! :-Z
Cleo wrote: "...That's the trouble with replaying someone's words and then trying to discuss them ..."That highlights another issue with "tradition" and "faithful transmission": how the message can be transmitted through the ages faithfully, when we have problem conveying clearly one person's message to another.
I agree with the spirit of Fr. Michael's message, though perhaps not the letter. I've tried to articulate the same in the FAQ. However, I suspect there is more to "the light of tradition" than reading things in context and having room for many interpretations and perspectives.
Nemo wrote: "That highlights another issue with "tradition" and "faithful transmission": how the message can be transmitted through the ages faithfully, when we have problem conveying clearly one person's message to another...."Well, I did my best. :-) I don't think comparing my uneducated attempt at communicating something I've had little exposure to can be compared to the manner and means of how tradition was handed down.
I'm starting to wonder how much we can actually glean without some direct guidance or if it will be more of a case of the blind leading the blind .... ;-)
Oh my! so much activity here. We must all be eager to get started :) And yes Cleo, Fr. Michael made perfect sense. One of the thoughts that occurred to me, is that "tradition" is really a composite or umbrella term under which we find many specific manifestations or expressions - hence our difficulty defining it.
Another thought was, and this may be a little redundant, we have to keep in mind what prompted these writings to begin with and who the target audience was. Are they responses to unorthodox practices in certain churches, are they meditations, homilies, recollections, etc., etc.?
I recently asked Fr. Barnabas if the Apostles were baptized. Given the prominence of baptism in Christianity, and the fact that there is no evidence of it in Scripture, I was a bit puzzled. His answer was, that yes, there is no written evidence about such an event, but that we can assume they were all baptized. When we look at the early Church we also have to look at what would be consistent - even if there is no specific record of it. The fact that the Apostles baptized others in the New Testament implies they were baptized themselves.
Another thing Fr. Barnabas mentioned takes my point above a little further - of why certain texts were written. He said that when things go fine, there is no need to write about them. Only if clarifications, etc. are necessary does one take the pains to do so.
Cleo wrote: "..I'm starting to wonder how much we can actually glean without some direct guidance or if it will be more of a case of the blind leading the blind .... ;-).."I think how much we can glean from reading the Fathers depends in large part on how much we're willing to put into it. "Whatever a man sows, that he will also reap."
As for the blind leading the blind, it does concern me, but then, as someone said when asked how he was doing, "It is the winter solstice. Things will only get better." :)
Kerstin wrote: "Another thing Fr. Barnabas mentioned takes my point above a little further - of why certain texts were written. He said that when things go fine, there is no need to write about them. Only if clarifications, etc. are necessary does one take the pains to do so. ..."I suppose at times when things go well, there is no need to read the Fathers either. But this is not one of those times.
Cleo wrote: "Nemo wrote: "For starters, which versions of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers and Philokalia would he recommend { agree with the points raised by Cleo in post # 11, Benedicta Ward's "The Sayings of the Desert Fathers" ISBN 0879079592, is a very fine way to gain exposure. Another fine book to help build background would be "Reading the Apostolic Fathers -- A Student's introduction" by Dr.Clayton Jefford; ISBN 9780801048579.
Also, I saw mention of the Philokalia, There are Kindle copies on Amazon for $2.00 or less, this is billed as the complete text -- I can not verify that; the parts I have looked at read well.
Mike wrote: "Cleo wrote: "Nemo wrote: "For starters, which versions of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers and Philokalia would he recommend { agree with the points raised by Cleo in post # 11, Benedicta Ward's..."
Thank you, Mike, for the book recommendation. I've added Dr. Jefford's book to the group bookshelf.
The Philokalia is published in 4 volumes. I found only one available for free at Internet Archive, and added that to the Resources folder.
As the New Year is fast approaching, I'm looking forward to our first group read with both fear and excitement. There is no better way to prepare for the journey than with prayer. I humbly ask that you all remember this group in your prayers for 2017, that as Paul writes in Ephesians 4:13-16:we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.
Very nice!And yes, we need prayers. This is an ambitious project and it will challenge all of us.
I'm glad to participate in this group reading. May God help us!
Reading the Church Fathers
Books mentioned in this topic
The Brothers Karamazov (other topics)The Philokalia, The Complete Text (other topics)
Catechism of the Catholic Church: Complete and Updated (other topics)
1. Start discussions of various church fathers, so members who are familiar with them can contribute at their convenience.
2. Organize group reads if enough members are interested in recommending/selecting a book and participating in discussions.
3. Post daily readings from the 38-volume Early Church Father series (see group description or the group bookshelf), starting with readings of Epistles of Clement.