Patristics Carnival V

We have a new host for the Patristics Carnival V, featuring posts from this month. God Fearin' Fiddler at the God Fearin' Forum blog will be hosting.

The guidelines remains the same as Modest Proposal entry back in November and my additions in August.

The last day of submission will be October 31th and the postings will be up later in the week of November 5th. . (NB: Amended October 14th)

Remember you can offer submissions on the carnival site or the dedicated e-mail (patristics-carnival@hotmail.com)

Thanks for God Fearin' for volunteering for this month!

Peace,
Phil

Patristics Carnival IV is up!

Our intrepid host for this month, Weekend Fisher on the Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength blog, has the new Patristics Carnival IV up. There are a lot of interesting entries. Enjoy!

If there is anyone interested in hosting next month, please let me know in the next few days. Meanwhile, think about your entries for Patristics Carnival V.

Peace,
Phil

Sulpicius Severus, Life of St. Martin 13

Here is the latest installment to the Life of St. Martin

Translation:

Likewise, when Martin had destroyed a very old temple in a certain village and he advanced to cut down a sacred pine tree which was nearby the altar, a priest of that place and the rest of a mob of pagans began to obstruct him. (2) When they also grew silent, as God ordered while the temple was destroyed, they could not endure the tree being cut down. Martin warned them sincerely that there was no religious obligation to a tree. Rather they should follow God whom Martin served and it was fitting for that tree to be cut down because it was dedicated to a daemon. (3) Then, one of them who was bolder than the rest aid "If you have any faith in your God whom you say you worship, we ourselves will cut down this tree. You, catch it while it is falling. If the Lord is with you as you say, you will, you will escape (harm). (4) Martin boldly confident in the Lord, promised he would do it. The whole mob of pagans agreed to this type of arrangement and thought it an easy sacrifice of this tree, if they would destroy an enemy of their rites in its fall. (5)Accordingly, since that pine was leaning to one side in such a way that there was no doubt on which side it would fall after being cut down, Martin was bound to that place where it was decided by the decision of the rustic that no one doubted the tree would fall. (6) Therefore, they began to cut down their own pine with great joy and happiness. A crowd of Martin's admirers was present a short distance away. Then the pine gradually began to nod and, about to fall, to imitate its own ruin. (7) The monks grew pale at distance and terrified with their own danger and lost all their hope and faith, awaiting only the death of Martin. (8)That man, bold in the Lord, waited, when the pine feel and gave a crack, with his hand raised, made sign of safety as the tree fell and rushed down on top of him. Then, truly, just as you would think would happen in a type of whirlwind, it fell in a different place so that it almost felled the rustics who were standing in that place. (9) Then, after shouting to heaven, the pagans were stunned by the miracle and the monks wept with joy. The name of Christ was proclaimed in common by all. It was agreed on that day that salvation came to that region. For there was almost no one from that huge mob of pagans who did not believe in the Lord Jesus, desiring the imposition of hands and setting aside the error of their impiety. Truly, before Martin, few, indeed almost no one received the name of Christ. it became so strong by Martin's virtues and example that soon there was no place there which was not filled with crowded churches and monasteries. For when he destroyed an altar, at once he built there either churches or monasteries.

Commentary:

This passage continues to feature St. Martin's conflict with the pagan practices so prevalent in the countryside of Gaul. For the last three chapters, we see St. Martin's tactics become increasingly intentional and provocative. In section 11, he was merely concentrating on suppressing a insufficiently attested (and, ultimately, demonic) martyrs cult. In section 12, a chance meeting with a pagan funeral procession gives St. Martin the opportunity to show his power over both the demons worshipped by pagans, but, even, his power over nature itself in inhibiting the movements of the pagans he encounters. Here, St. Martin is beginning to seek out pagan altars in order to destroy them and the cults which belong to them. This progression (whatever our opinion about the miracles attached to this story) suggest an escalating campaign to Christianize the Gallic countryside around Tours. The successes noted here suggest that it began to work to an unprecedented degree.

This, of course, leaves aside the questions of the miracles which play such a role in these stories. Modern history, notoriously, has problems with miracles stories for the excellent reason they are exceedingly improbable. This is rather the point, of course, because, if St. Martin only did what was expected he would have been squished by this tree. More to the point, these miracles represent the power that St. Martin has over the pagan gods which were his (and Jesus') real opponents. As I noted in earlier comments, I really don't know that I can prove these miracles using historical methods because they are unprovable. Yet, in faith, I have to also, in all honesty, say that nothing is impossible for God.

Peace,
Phil

Origen and Living Tradition

I've started reading the Philocalia of Origen, a compilation, presumably made by St. Basil of Caesarea and St. Gregory of Nazianzus, of some of the better bits of Origen's theological works. Origen, of course, has an ambiguous reputation in the history of the Church. It is impossible to deny his influence on the development of Christian doctrine (both good and bad) in the East. It is impossible to deny his genuinely helpful insights into Scripture, informed both by his extensive understanding of the Bible and by his richly intellectually curious mind. Many of the answers to the various conundra of the Old and New Testaments can be traced right back to Origen's careful exegetical work on almost every book of the Bible.

Yet, Origen's reputation was badly sullied in the third century, when anti-Origenist theologians attacked the great thinker. What was more, many of these attacks were entirely warranted because there are times when one wants to ask Origen if he is a Platonist or a Christian. His universalism, his fondness of the language of the Platonic Ideas and his belief in the pre-existence crossed the line for the Church and, along with is self-castration, cost Origen a good deal of his reputation and, incidently, any chance at canonization as a saint.

This ambiguity can be seen in an ancient preface to the Philocalia which is clearly influenced by this later anti-Origen feeling in Christian thinking. This preface (whose authorship I don't know, but would love it if someone could tell me) clearly dislikes Origen and is, as a result, uncomfortable with the attestation of this collection to the efforts of St. Basil and St. Gregory; those two stalwart defenders of orthodoxy in the later 4th century. The problem, in the eyes of this early preface, was that this attribution seems supported by a letter by Gregory the Theologian (I think this is Gregory Thaumaturgus) which explicitly states that St. Basil and Gregory made this collection). This letter is found in the old manuscript of the Philocalia from which the current manuscript tradition is copied. The editor of this preface doesn't dispute that this letter was written or that this is the collection which was made. What he does claim is that pro-Origenists have inserted clearly heretical passages into this otherwise 'orthodox' and doctrinally pristine collection by the two Cappadocians.

This particular example of textual criticism strikes me as a little forced. It is entirely based on the fact of the two Cappadocians exemplary orthodoxy and the insistence it must agree with the concept of the orthodoxy of the editor's day. Many today would find nothing remarkable in this insistence and would be disturbed by any suggestion that St. Basil and St. Gregory liked Origen too much. I suspect that behind this disturbance of the Christian tradition as static and closed. This conception of tradition, comforting to conservatives and maddening to liberals, is a mistaken one.

The conception I'm referring to is the idea that tradition is, by nature, static, a checklist of propositions which have always been in force and much be checked off in their entirety to satisfy one's place in the tradition. This particular modernist caricature has had a long life and it continues to impose upon any discussion of what tradition is. Conservatives are eager to 'prove' the doctrinal purity of an earlier time (just as this ancient editor did) and, thus, to defend it in the present. Liberals, rightly, see these attempts as forced and they spend their time proving the 'deviations' from the norm of the tradition which just goes to prove that there was no precedent for the tradition as it exists. Whether one is seeking to prove the truth of a tradition or disprove it, what these two approaches have in common is a tendency to see tradition as static.

I've already discussed my view of tradition here. I will take the liberty of quoting myself, so I don't have to go over the same ground:

A tradition, in my view, is a relatively coherent body of thought which is characterized both by a narrative featuring a coherent group of people and how they believe they fit in the world and by a running conversation or commentary over time about how this narrative should be interpreted and appropriated by the individuals in that community. It is not calcified belief, but rather must be dynamic as it encounters both internal and external challenges to its status as a truthful narrative. Indeed, the moment that it becomes calcified tradition, with little relation to what is going on in the world or with its followers, it loses it coherence and its ability to explain the world. What follows is that this tradition rapidly loses its appeal and, ultimately, its following.

How does this apply to Origen and the Philocalia? What we have to recognize is that no tradition emerges fully formed from the head of a creator, but rather it forms and develops over time. In its early stages, a tradition is fuzzier and less defined than it would become. That means there was more latitude for deviation, but that, as the implications of individual deviations become clear, they may be accepted as more or less acceptable. This leads to great definition of the tradition and the retrospective judgement of earlier figures, who could not be expected to have known how the tradition has developed or will develop fully. If a tradition is living, it is forced to deal with both its internal debates and its encounters with other worldviews. Part of that process is refinement, but it can lead to a splintering of the tradition, if the narrative which underlies the tradition should seem to be inadequate to the task of explaining the world. It can also lead to the very ambiguities that Christians face in dealing with Origen.

In his day, Origen was extremely controversial, but there were few who did not reckon him as inside the orthodox tradition. They might challenge him on many of his assumptions and his Platonism, but there seems to have been a general recognition that, deep down, Origen recognized the Bible as the basic authority in Scripture (not Plato) and that his resort to Plato was an effort to engage the wider culture.
Origen had his share of detractors and enemies, but, in his day, he was not considered heretical, so much as problematic.

Later anti-Origenists, after having seen the effect that Platonized Christianity had on the great heresies of the 4th century like Arianism and the Christological heresies, felt that Origen's allegiance to Plato was in conflict with his allegiance to Christ. The central differences is the degree to which Origen complied with the rules of the tradition as defined or re-defined by the Church. As a result, we have the problem faced by this ancient editor, who retrojects the developed orthodoxy after these conflicts and cannot see why Origen had such an influence on his theological heroes, St. Basil and St. Gregory. Yet, what we have seen happen is the movement towards greater definition on the question of how much Platonism is too much Platonism in theology. Origen, by this time, crosses the line, but there is enough of his work which does not, but he is left in a very ambiguous position.

This means that, for us, the problem posed by Origen is how much did he stay faithful to the narrative of Christianity in its traditional form and to what degree does he continue to do so, given his Platonic departures. I'm not sure to what degree I can answer that, largely because I haven't even finished the Philocalia, much less read as much of Origen as I could. Even if I had, given the massive amounts of his writing that haven't survived, I doubt I could come up with a conclusive statement.

Yet, the test I would propose is the same one I would propose for any other theological writer, Church Father or not: how well does he stay faithful to what the Bible teaches. That is, of course, opening a whole new can of worms, given the differences of opinion on what the Bible teaches or even whether it teaches anything coherently. Personally, I think both questions can be answered more or less concretely, partly because, otherwise, we Christians would be unable to claim to have a coherent tradition and partly because I think that tradition is still the best explanation of how the world works. This last comment, I think, is the subject of a whole new set of post and, given that my nine and a half month old son is happily tearing our den apart as I write, I must end this discussion here.

Peace,
Phil

Patristics Carnival IV

The fourth edition of the Patristics Carnival will be hosted by Weekend Fisher over at the Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength blog. The guidelines remains the same as Modest Proposal entry back in November and my additions in August.

The last day of submission will be September 30th and the postings will be up later in the week of October 1st.

Remember you can offer submissions on the carnival site or the dedicated e-mail (patristics-carnival@hotmail.com)

Thanks to Weekend Fisher for taking this one. If there are other prospective hosts, please contact me.

Peace,
Phil

St. John Chrysostom and the Problem of Wealth

As my sidebar has noted, I've been reading sermons of St. John Chrysostom dealing with wealth and poverty. These sermons focus primarily on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, but this is really only the starting point. This is St. John at his best; passionate, eloquent and rigorous. It is bracing stuff, especially when read in the modern West where even the working class are richer than anything than St. John would have dreamt of. In the ancient world, there was virtually no social safety net (short of what Christians, Jews and some voluntary associations could give) and little or no sense about what to do about the poor. Indeed, there was, then as now, a tendency to blame the poor. I wonder what is the difference between viewing the poor as accursed and setting up snitch lines for welfare fraud?

St. John is uncompromising about his attitude to wealth. That is, of course, part of what got him into trouble in Constantinople, when he castigated the rich of the imperial capital for their excesses even to the point of attacking the empress. That didn't win him friends, but I doubt if he was interested in doing that. His attitude to wealth is not the reflexive assumption that anyone who is rich is corrupt which is the implication of many poverty activists out there. Rather St. John insists that any wealth we have we hold in trust for God and for doing God's service. That is, if we are spending more than we need on ourselves and not helping those who are in poverty, we are being truly bad stewards.

His example, par excellence, is the rich man in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Matthew), who neglects a desperately poor man begging at his door, but pleads that the same poor man be sent to relieve his torments in Hell or prevent those future torments of the rich man's relations. As St. John points out, this rich man has been an atrociously bad steward and he is suffering the consequences of it. His implication is that this is what will happen to those who prosper and gain riches without recognizing that they are only holding it in trust for God.

One of the striking elements of these sermons is St. John's image of sin as illness and that Scripture is one of the healing instruments which God uses. As John points out, Abraham's contention that the rich man's relatives wouldn't listen to a resurrected Lazarus if they didn't listen to Moses and the prophets underlines the importance of Scripture and our predecessors in faith. There are sufficient guides to how to behave, but we have to submit to the treatment that God administers through them. That treatment can be painful, but its benefits cannot be underestimated.

As I've been reading these sermons, I keep thinking about our finances. Like many new parents in our city, we are struggling to work out how to buy a house and run a household on, effectively, one income. It is easy to bemoan the fact that I can't go out as much as we'd like, buy books as much as I'd like (that is very much one of my vices) and what not. We can feel very poor. Yet, if I look around, I have to admit that we are fairly rich: we have an apartment, enough food and a goodly amount of possessions (including books!). And that gets me thinking how good a steward I am. I wonder what St. John would say, if we had him over.

Peace,
Phil

Patristics and Early Christian Studies

This is a patristics blog. Of course, this should not come as a shock to any of my readers and, indeed, they might well wonder why I should make such an obvious observation. The reason is that I've been thinking over the past few weeks about the nature of patristics and its place in the intellectual universe which is dominated by (but not coterminous with)the modern academic world. In that world, despite the clear revival of interest among some Christians, patristics is a distinctly unfashionable discipline. Of course, neither is theology and, given the connections between patrology and theology, this is not a coincidence.

The reason for patrology and theology's lack of cultural cache is, ultimately, that they really don't fit well in the intellectual culture of our day. That intellectual culture is dominated by, but not coterminous with, the university which tend to have a very different intellectual stance to the subject matter of patrology and theology and, as a result, tends to see these disciplines as throwbacks to a less enlightened time. Instead, they deal with the subject matter of theology through Religious Studies departments and patrology through Early Christian studies. What Religious studies and Early Christian Studies have in common is their stance that the scholar's proper stance to his subject should be an objective one. That is, that it is very important for the scholar in either of these fields to set aside any of their own beliefs about God and faith in order to act as the classically liberal observer of facts and data. In its heart of hearts (and despite much post-modern posing in humanities departments), the academic world is still very modernist in its assumptions and it makes the assumption that this vulgarly scientific mindset is the only valid approach to these and other subjects.

Now, don't get me wrong. I've been trained in an academic setting and I value that training. The products of the research of academia are impressive intellectual achievements and have further our understanding in most fields immensely. What does annoy me about this mindset is that it presumes that it is the only way to think that is valid. I have no problem if someone decides to analyse something in this way--the results are often rewarding and helpful enough in advancing our understanding in historical and other fields to justify continued research in this mode. Yet, I would argue that theology and patrology have contributions to make as well. What I find problematic is that it is never entirely certain what we are doing history (or talking about God) for, if all we are doing are being observers of the 'facts'.

Theology and patrology represent is an inversion of the common academic approach. That is, its stance is within a living faith tradition in which the contributions of one's predecessors are developed and amplified in order to increase one's understanding of a worldview which differs substantially from the tradition behind modern academe. The concern of a patrologist is to ask questions about how the Fathers thought in order to provide resources to evaluate and re-evaluate our theology within the Christian church today. It is not to add to the database of some kind of abstract history-as-it-was database whose purpose is both unclear and, hence, represents, at best, a body of interesting reading and, at worst, unconnected (and, hence, trivial) antiquarian lore.

Patrology, as a result, is profoundly and truly counter-cultural in a way that Early Christian studies (for all its posing) cannot be. Early Christian studies is very much at home in the dominant intellectual culture of our day because it adopts the modern academic approach without question. Furthermore, it participates in the modern culture wars between religion and secularism with a decidedly slant to the latter. It can't help it. If one's job as a scholar is to check one's theology, faith and beliefs at the door, this is to say that they are, ultimately, irrelevant to one's scholarly discourse and to communal discourse as whole. And, after all, is this not the assumption of Western secular cultures--that religion (and not just Christianity) is, at best, irrelevant to our common life and, at worst, is a threat to it (by fostering division).

This, I think, explains the whole spate of books dealing with the historical quest for Jesus which have been coming out regularly at Easter and Christmas because they should be understood as counters to the religious pronouncements perceived as central to the Religious Right which do regard religion as an important aspect of our communal life. I have my problems with the Religious Right (more in its selectivity of causes and less than salubrious alliances, than in its right to political activity), but it is hard not to see the often gleeful 'de-bunking' of Jesus' divinity implied in the continuing alternative gospels craze on in the Jesus' tomb excitement as implying a slap in the face to religious conservatives. Not that there is a conspiracy to do this, but, rather, that we are educated in our modern Western secular culture to study early Christianity this way and, if it should annoy the Religious Right, that is good as well.

The justification of patrology's counter-cultural status is that it very clearly isn't interested in either validating the modernists assumptions of secular culture nor is it interested in trying to defend Christianity in the way that the Religious Right does. Patrology gives us a window to a completely different tradition and, hence, culture to that of the world around us. The same amount of care and intellectual effort can be used in patrology as in any modern university, but it is done so with different assumptions and different restrictions. The patrologist contributes to a different counter-culture-traditional orthodox Christianity- and, as a result, cannot help but to clash with those in a more 'academic' setting.

Peace,
Phil

Patristics Carnival III- August, 2007

Front Gate: Introduction to the Fathers

Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers offers an introduction to the Fathers (and Mothers) in four parts (Part One, Two, Three, Four). For all of those who don't quite know where to begin, this is a good place.

The Midway: Articles on the Fathers

chrysostomos on the Patristically Speaking blog make a brief, but effective plea to read the Fathers and the Reformers.

Dr. Claude Mariottini isn't a fan of patristic style typology and he tells you why.
Exhibition Place: Biographies on the Fathers

Steve on Triablogue challenges an attempt to re-date Paul's letters using Marcian's revision of the canon. The Food Tent: Book-Reviews on patristic books

Carla on the Carla Nayland Historical Fiction blog discusses Bede and the use of his sources. Yes, Bede (barely) falls into the patristic period.

Jeff Martin on the What's Wrong with the World blog discusses St. Augustine and his concept of infancy in the Confessions.

Patrik Hagman on the God in a Shrinking Universe blog gives an account of the 15th International Patristics Conference in Oxford in July. Roger Pierce ....

Josh McManaway on A New Testament Student blog discusses the importance of reading the Fathers while studying the New Testament. A sentiment close to my heart.

Doug on the Metacatholic blog reacts to McMabaway's blog and discusses the case for an ordained priesthood in the NT and the some very early Fathers.

James Siemeens on The East And West blog continues his discussion about Theodore of Tarsus and his influence on the British church.

Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers blog discusses the connection between keys in Isaiah and Matthew in St. Ephrem, reports on Pope Benedict's discussion of Basil, Pope Benedict's comments about St. Gregory Nazianzus , discusses St. Augustine, and finishes off with Pope Benedict's comments on St. Gregory of Nyssa.

Kevin Edgecomb on the biblicalia blog discusses the regula fidei and reminds us of the story of St. Eustochius.

God Fearin' Fiddler on the God Fearin' Forum blog offers us a brilliant parody on Protestant use of Church Fathers. . And I, a Prot, even thought it was funny!

Ben Smith on the Thoughts on Antiquity blog publishes another in his canonical lists series on the canonical list of St. Epiphanius and a discussion of patristic citations on the cherubim.

Exhibition Place: Biographies of the Fathers

Orycteropus Afer on the Aardvark Alley blog features a biography of St. Augustine.

The Marketplace: Book Reviews

Matthijs den Dulk on the NT Today blog reviews Stanley E. Porter & Gordon L. Heath's The Lost Gospel of Judas: Separating Fact from Fiction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007)

The Rodeo: Patristic catenae

Kacy on the Meandering Home blog features a catena on Scripture and authority directed against sola scriptura.

The Symphony of Scripture offers a Protestant catena and commentary on the subject of transsubstantiation.

The Foreign Exchange Tent: Translations

Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers blog reviews Daniel A. Keating, The Appropriation of Divine Life in Cyril of Alexandria .

The Dyspraxic Fundamentalist on The Patristic Page posts his translation of Pseudo-Dionysius' Mystical Theology.

April DeConick on The Forbidden Gospels blog notes Sebastian Brock's book on the Bible in the Syriac tradition

The Apocryphral Aisle: Christian Apocrypha

Tony Chartrand-Burke on the Apocryphicity blog features his final five misconceptions about Christian Apocrypha and reflects on Christian Acocrypha palimpsests.

April DeConick on The Forbidden Gospels blog notes some recent correction in the the readings of the Gospel of Judas, , discusses the scholarly tendency to divide up groups within Judaism and Christianity.

Sulpicius Severus, Life of St. Martin 12

In this excerpt, we see Martin encountering a funeral procession and demonstrating his exceptional power over people, even if he did so by mistake.

It happened later, while he was on a journey, he encountered the body of a certain pagan which was being carried to a tomb with superstitious funeral rites. Seeing the crowd of those accompanying it, he stood aside, not knowing what was happening. Since he was half a mile off, it was difficult to distinguish what he saw. (2)Nevertheless, because he saw the rustic company and the linen cloth thrown over the body fluttering about as the wind was blowing it, he thought that an unholy rite of sacrifices was being performed. It was the custom of Gallic rustics to carry around the image of demons, covered in a shroud in a miserable madness. (3)Lifting the sign of the cross against them, he ordered the mob not to move from the place and they should set aside their burden. Here, in an astonishing way, you would see that they stood still at first just as rocks. (4)Then, when they were struggling to move forward with the utmost effort, they were able to accomplish nothing more than to whirl around in a ridiculous circle, until, beaten, they set aside the burden of the body. Astonished and looking at each other in turn, they silently thought about what had happened to them then. (5) When that blessed man discovered that it was the throng of a funeral procession, not of accursed (gods), raising his hand again, he gave them the power to leave and to raise the body. Thus, when he wished them to stand, he compelled them to do so. When it was pleasing, he allowed them to leave.

The first thing to note here is that this passage is continuing the theme of suppressing the rural pagan practices that were characteristic in St. Martin's Gallic setting. Here he is isn't even seeking out a confrontation, but, in a chance encounter, he seeks to confront what he thinks is a pagan religious procession in action. This should emphasize how important this activity was for Martin, whose fame rests, in a large part, on his efforts to Christianize the countryside around Tours; an effort which was incomplete throughout the Western Empire. The countryside was notoriously slow to adopt Christianity and much of Martin's activities was concentrated on this effort.

Second, we have to deal with what is actually happening here. What St. Martin thinks he's dealing with is a sacred procession in which a god is carried around the countryside, possibly for fertility rites, possibly as protection against death. I lean a little towards the second because the confusion with the funeral rites may suggest that a chthonic deity is meant here. Still, given the close link between underworld gods and fertility gods, I don't think this is a given. The similarities in the rites are interesting.

Third, we see another demonstration of St. Martin's powers in the vain struggle of the people in the procession to proceed. The almost funny spectacle of the members of the funeral procession whirling around in circles is a vivid image, but it demonstrates St. Martin's power (through the grace of God) to control the outside world and people. This continues the theme of wonder-working that we've already seen in St. Martin's story and will continue to follow it as we go.

As a query, I wonder if there is a biblical or patristic story about a prophet or holy man halting a procession like this. I can't recall anything that is really close.

Peace,
Phil

Book Review-Mike Aqulina, The Mass of the Early Christians

A few months ago, a copy of Mike Aquilina's 2nd edition of The Mass of the Early Christians came my way. I was happy to see it on several levels, but largely because I've been reading his blog, The Way of the Fathers, ( must read for all patristibloggers) for just over a year and corresponding with him for about as long. He also has been a strong supporter of this blog and I was happy to read more of his writing in a conventional form.

In this book, Aquilina tackles the origins of the Mass (or Eucharist, as I would say). The perspective is Catholic (that isn't surprising, given the term Mass used), but I was please to see Mike's irenic style throughout. He considers the practice of the Mass from the first Pentacost to the Council of Nicaea (and Cyril of Jerusalem as a coda). The books breaks down into four parts: first, a historical introduction which includes a fascinating section connecting Jewish worship and the Christian liturgies connected to the Mass; the testimonia of the Fathers themselves, along with some pagan and heretic testimony; substantial excerpts of Cyril of Jerusalem as representative of the post-Nicene tradition; and a creative exercises to bring the early Christian Mass to life. Aquilina's style is clear, accessible and a pleasure to read.

In its basis, this is a source book and the issues addressed by the excerpts are traditional Catholic ones: Real Prescence, liturgical action, the concept of the priesthood, relationship to heretical and schismatic Christians. The result is a very clear enunciation of the patristic evidence for the Catholic view of the Eucharist. As an Anglican who believes in the Real Presence (even if I'm not sure I want to go quite all the way to transubstantiation), I find much in common with the testimonies cited.. Given the interest of Anglicans in the Liturgical Renewal program in the last century, this is not an unusual position. I do wonder how a more, say, Calvinist Protestant would select his sources on the topic, but that is just an idle thought.

I encourage my readers to seek out this new edition of The Mass of the Early Christians. For my Catholic readers, it is a valuable connection to the Catholic liturgical tradition and its patristic justification. For non-Catholics, it is an excellent and accessible account to the Catholic reading of the Fathers and tradition. Either way, you will enjoy your time with this book.

Peace,
Phil

Patristics Carnival III

Okay, folks, it is time for you to get together your submissions for Patristics Carnvial III. Remember the guidelines from the Modest Proposal post and the alterations I made last time.

The last day of submission is August 31st and I expect to get it up in the course of September 3rd.

Please also remember that I'm looking for help with the carnival, so if you might be intersted in hosting it, let me know. Or I'll come looking for you!

Peace,
Phil

Towards a Protestant Patrology

One of the things I've been amused to notice in my ten month career as a patristiblogger is the surprise I get from my Orthodox and Catholic readers that a Protestant is interested in the Fathers at all. I don't blame their surprise because I know that many Protestants have rejected the need to look at the history of the Church between, say, the apostolic era and Luther hammering the 95 theses to the door at Wittenberg (or, in more extreme cases, the establishment of one's own particular sect). Patristic authors, in this view, mark the beginning of the corruption of the Church in late antiquity and the Middle Ages.

I am, however, an Anglican, which, in itself, should explain my interest in the Fathers because we have a long tradition of considering ourselves both Protestant and Catholic. What that means varies according to the particular Anglican being addressed, but, for me, it means that I am Protestant to the Reformers had the right idea in their ideas about many things including their subordination of tradition to the authority of Scripture. And I'm just Catholic enough to think that tradition is an important aid in helping to read Scripture properly. For me, the Fathers represent a recovery of tradition, but one which must be subordinate to Scripture.

Now, I'm not arguing sola scriptura strictly here, but rather something closer to prima scriptura. That is, Scripture is uniquely authoritative, offers a unified worldview and can be interpreted within its own confines without the medium of outside authorities. Any theological proposition, whether our own or that of the past, must be referred back to Scripture in order to discern whether it is, in fact, appropriately considered a Christian position. That has led to some Protestants rejecting the Fathers (and anyone else before the Reformers), but I don't think it needs to. So, what I want to do is set out some points about what a Protestant Patrology might justify itself or look like.

The Reformers were influenced by the Fathers

The fact that many of the Reformers knew their way through the Fathers and were willing to use that knowledge comes as a surprise to many non-Protestants. I understand that, but the record is clear that many Reformers, including Luther and Calvin, not only recognized a debt to the Church Fathers (especially Augustine), but used their understanding of these Fathers as a tool to cut through what they perceived as the tangle of late mediaeval tradition. Some of this came out in biblical scholarship, but, by far the most popular use of the Fathers, was the polemical use in the characterization and appropriation of the values of the early Church, in establishing precedents for Reform practices such as priesthood of all believers, rejection of the episcopal system of church government, even infant baptisms and in trying to establish just when the Church slide into corruption. Now, whether one agrees with their conclusions or not (I apologize to my Roman Catholic readers for the tone of the above argument, but I was trying to give a sense of the tone of the Reformers on these issues), we can see the Reformers were interested in patristics, even if only for polemical purposes. That does suggest to Protestant today that, perhaps patristics isn't an un-Reformed interest, after all.

The Fathers are relentlessly Scriptural

Contrary to that strong Protestant trend to dismiss as human tradition any non-Biblical writer, my reading of the Fathers has brought me to see how intensely steeped in the Fathers were in Scripture. Just read a Father or two and what one carries away is the impression of a way of writing theologically whose expressions and images constantly allude to and appropriate Scripture in the way they argue and are constantly concerned with interpreting Scripture in such a way that make a direct connection to one's own life. The Fathers had a high view of Scripture and tended to view it as intelligible, often through interpreting particularly difficult passages by reference to other more sure passages of Scripture. This should sound vaguely familiar to any Protestant reader because this seems to be what Luther was driving at when he declared his slightly hyperbolic slogan, sola scriptura. For the Fathers, Scripture was authoritative and coherent on its own, even if they used tools (drawn from the same source, the apostolic tradition) such as the Rule of Faith) to guide the interpretation of it.

BUT: The Fathers can be wrong

At this point, I may have shocked some of my Roman Catholic and Orthodox readers for a moment, but, I hope, that if they think about it, they have to recognize that this recognition of the fallibility of the Fathers has been understood in their own tradition by referring the teachings of the Fathers to the magisterium (for Catholics) or the patristic consensus (for Orthodox) before deciding on the orthodoxy of a given statement. Sometimes a Father is insufficiently precise, given later doctrinal formulations, because he hasn't been challenged by heresy or schism to speak more precisely. Sometimes a Father is just out and out says something that is wrong, when it is tested against Scripture or tradition. Thus, we get Fathers like Tertullian and Origen who say a lot of right things, but must be handled with care because they also say some just wrong things.

For the Protestant, the filter to decide whether a particular statement is right or wrong is, ultimately, Scripture. Implicit in this statement is a belief that, while the meaning of the Bible is always static, our understanding can be affected by our sin or sloth and sometimes something that a culture or cultures decide is okay is suddenly recognized as not truly supported by Scripture. Mind you, this is proven by reference to Scripture, not through outside standards like experience. In a sense, this is what another Reformation slogan, semper reformanda, is getting at because there is a recognition that we, as Christians, have to continually challenge our own reading of Scripture to make sure that we aren't engaged in a case of self-delusion in our (mis-)reading of the Bible. The Fathers can help us in that because they are reflective of a culture without the same assumptions or blindnesses as ours (they had plenty of their own), but their own statements are subject to the same evaluation before we accept them in their entirety.

I'm quite sure that I haven't plumbed the depths of this topic, but this seems a good place to stop and ask for feedback. What other issues should a Protestant consider in his or her patrology?

Peace,
Phil

Patristics Carnival- July, 2007

I'm back from a busy trip to Winnipeg and a rest from blogging. As my July 20th post noted, I decided to change the format of the patristic updates away from a weekly roundup to a monthly roundup. That works better for my own time and allows for the expansion of the Carnival idea to include other hosts (if you want to be a host for a future Carnival, e-mail me from my profile.

Please note that any entries I accept must be written within the month indicated. It is not enough to tag an old entry and send it in as has been done. Also, please remember to send me entries because the only suggested entry was an old one from 2006 which I did not include in this edition for the above stated reason.

You will also notice some format changes within the Carnival. I've decided to eliminate links to mere quotes of patristic authors, largely because, while these are edifying on their own, there are far too many of these for me to keep track of. Instead, I'm focusing on articles which do something with the patristic material. I've given more categories to structure these, as you'll notice below.

To commemorate all these changes, I've done some template changes to a minimalistic approach. I expect to add some graphics/pictures and more links as time goes on.

So, on to the Carnival!

Front Gate: Introductions to the Fathers

No introductions this month.

The Midway: Articles on the Fathers

Brandon Watson on the Siris blog reviews the impact of the negative evaluation of the Victorians on the reputation of St. Cyril of Alexandria.

Bret Saunders on the In Alcuin's Shadow blog features a discussion of several opinions on the formation of the canon with commentary from a Protestant point of view.

On the same blog, Tim Enloe discusses the contrast between the pagan and Christian concepts of the Roman past and how this debate shaped patristic thought. This is an interesting and enlightening attempt to get at the relationship between classical culture and Christianity inspired by R.A. Markus.

reynor on the cafe theology blog posts Pope Benedict's catechetical address on St. Basil the Great.

Melinda on the Stand to Reason blog exhorts us to remember the Christian past, starting with St. Justin Martyr.
Oswald Sobrino on the

Catholic Analysis blog features a book review of Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit by Fr. Kilian McDonnell and Fr. George T. Montague which features patristic evidence on baptism.

K.B. Enthusiasmos on the Mere Orthodoxy blog discusses the need for evangelicals to recover tradition in parts one and two.
Exhibition Place: Biographies on the Fathers

Michael Hidalgo features St. Polycarp of Smyrna in his Heroes of the Faith series.
The Food Tent: Book-Reviews on patristic books

Alice C. Linsley on the Just Genesis blog features a discussion on St. Ephrem's handling of Genesis. . She continues with a discussion of St. John Chyrsosthom's handling of Lamech in part one and two.

Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Father's blog features an interview with him conducted by the Catholic Servant on Pope Benedict's catechetical lectures. Also, continue to check in on Mike's useful links to resources and other discussions.

God Fearin' Fiddler on God Fearin' Forum discusses the contact points between Montanism and Pentacostals, discusses papal authority and Pope Victor and answers my criticisms on the same subject.

Ben Smith on the Thoughts on Antiquity blog continue his series on canonical lists with the Canon of Athanasius.

The Rodeo: Patristic catenae
Coemgenus on the Catholic Apologetics of America blog features a catena on the Early Fathers and the Catholic Church.

mattymoho on the matty's moorish grotto blog features a patristic catena on reincarnation. Some are a bit of a stretch.

The Foreign Exchange Tent: Translations
John F. Hobbins on the Ancient Hebrew Poetry blog features St. Augustine's use of the Psalsm followed up with translations of Psalms from Latin and Hebrew versions.

Kevin Edgecomb on the biblicalia blog continues his translation series on the sayings of the Desert Fathers with St. Agathon and again.

The Apocryphral Aisle: Christian Apocrypha

Justin Halter on The Truth Shall Set you Free blog features a discussion of Gnosticism and connects it with liberal theology today. Perhaps this is a bit of an unfair comparision? For a good balance, see the April DeConick and Tony Chartrand-Burke articles below.

April DeConick on The Forbidden Gospels blog has had a busy July with an extensive series of discussions. Among her topics are a review of the BYU Studies on the Gospel of Judas, a series on why the non-canonical gospels make people uneasy (in parts one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine)and a series on Nag Hammadi's impact on culture in parts one, two, three, four). All of these are well worth reading, although I would hasten to add Dr. DeConick's positions, while scholarly, will not necessarily please those committed to the canon as we have it from the Fathers.

Tony Chartrand-Burke on Apocryphicity weighs in on April DeConick's discussion on why Christian apocrypha makes us uneasy and discusses the first five of his ten arguments of why Christian anti-Christian Apocrypha apologetics get it wrong (and recaptulates here)

I think that is for the carnival. The next carnival for August will close on August 31st and by about September 3rd. If anyone is interested in hosting, please e-mail me and we'll work out times. I'd appreciate help with the hosting, if anyone can lessen my load.

Peace,
Phil

Patristics Carnival Revival

I've decided to revive the Patristics carnival idea I had back in December,largely because the weekly Roundups are becoming difficult to maintain, what with a seven month son, work and family. So, I'm thinking that the Carnivals will run monthly (the experience of the Roundups suggest to me there will be material). The general guidelines are here in the Modest Proposal post from November. The only real change I'll make is that I will not post mere quotes from the Fathers, but will consider catenas on a case by case basis. Otherwise, essays or reflections are welcome.

Submissions can be sent through the dedicated e-mail: patristics-carnival@hotmail.com or through the blog carnival site. Suggestions should be submitted by July 31st. I expect to publish it by August 8th (I'll be in transit before that).

Spread the word. The Patristics carnival is back!

Meanwhile, back to my regularly scheduled vacation.

Peace, Phil

Summer Break

After a rather tiring and trying spring, the school year is over and I'm (almost) officially on vacation. To celebrate, I'm taking a month long blogging hiatus starting today, so there will be no Patristic Roundups until the end of July or early August, when I plan a massive roundup. So, stay tuned.

In the meantime, enjoy the picture of a flax field in bloom (NOT a lake!). Also, please pray for my wife, son and I as we travel out West to Winnipeg to see family.

Peace,
Phil

Sulpicius Severus- Life of St. Martin 11

I'm behind on my installments of St. Martin, but here is the new one, dealing with a (false) martyr cult.

Text:

But I shall proceed with addressing his remaining virtues which he performed as bishop.

Not far from the town, there was a place near the monastery in which the false opinion of men dedicated as martyrs' tomb. (2) For it was believed that an altar had been set up by earlier bishops. Martin, not adhering rashly to faith in uncertain things, demanded the name of the martyr from the priests and clerics who were older and to be shown the time of his martyrdom. He was moved by a strong scruple because the constant memory of tradition handed down nothing certain about it. (3) When he had held himself back from that place, neither detracting from that cult because it was uncertain, nor adapting his own authority to the mob so that the superstition would flourish, on a certain day, with brothers accompanying, he hastened to the place. (4) Then, standing over the tomb, he prayed to the Lord that He might show Martin whose tomb it was and what merit he had. Then, turning to the left, he saw a foul and savage ghost standing nearby. He ordered him to say what name and what merit he had. The ghost gave his name and admitted his crime. He was a robber who had been struck down because of his crime, but celebrated because of the error of the mob. He had nothing in common with the martyrs, since glory preserved them, but his punishment preserved him. (5) In an astonishing way,k those who were present heard the voice speaking, but saw no person. Then, Martin explained what he had seen and ordered that the altar which was there be moved from that place and, thus, he released the people from the error of its superstition.

Commentary:

This is an interesting passage on several scores. First, it reveals the confusion and misunderstandings that grew up around the cults to the martyrs which becomes quite important in the course of the fourth century. We, with our fully developed saints' lists, forget how messy the process of discerning true saints and martyrs and linking them to their tombs/relics was. Usually, there were many years between the death of the martyrs in question and the rise of the cults, simply because outward signs of commemoration of these saints was tricky while Christianity remained illegal in the Roman Empire. With Christianity's legalization, there was literally an explosion of localized martyr cults, some of which had considerable evidence for a connection, but many of which, like this one, are only tenuously connected to a martyr or saint.

This, of course, has led many scholars, secular and Christian, to wonder what was happening here. Was this the appropriation of pagan sites by connection to a previously unknown (or even fictitious) saint? Was this site mentioned by Sulpicius an ancient pagan site or tomb which was connected earlier with a martyr to preserve the traditions attached to the site. Sulpicius doesn't make it clear what kind of commemorations were done on the site, so it is difficult to know whether this is what was going one, but there is evidence that many of these rural pagan shrines were appropriated by Christians for this or that saint. Even as late as the Reformation, we know of these rural shrines being very active; to the horror of the Reformers who, rightly, saw these as pagan survivals.

This leads to my second point. What St. Martin seems to be doing here is regulating this impulse by questioning a cult with a highly dubious martyrs cult. He was rightly suspicious of a martyr's cult where the name of the martyr and the time of the martyrdom was unknown. Yet, he is cautious about how to deal with it, recognizing that the cult was very popular. So, he hesitates before he abolishes it and, then, only on the authority of a vision from God. This, in many ways, demonstrates both St. Martin's savvy as a bishop, but also his authority as a holy man. Ultimately, it is his status as a holy man which validates his vision and allows him to tear down the altar after 'proving' it to be a false cult. In St. Martin, the holy man and bishop are found in the same person and, one wonders, whether Sulpicius is implying that this is the way it should be.

Thirdly, I think we have to also see this episode as part of St. Martin's attempt to Christianize the rural areas in his responsibility. As many scholars have pointed out, Christianity was, initially, an urban phenomenon and did not really start penetrating the largely pagan countryside until the end of the fifth century; Martin of Tours being one of the pioneers of this effort. Admittedly, this shrine was conveniently located close to St. Martin's monastery, but the decision of St. Martin to deal with the altar shows his interest in religion in the rural areas usually neglected by Christian leaders. We will see more of this as the story goes on.

Lastly, I want to again highlight the role of the vision in this story. As the holy man, St. Martin is able, with God's help, to call out the demons and unclean spirits in the land, just as Jesus was able to do and as the Apostles became able to do. This connection is not coincidental, but, I think, has to be attributed to a tendency to want to equate St. Martin with the Apostles and show the degree to which St. Martin participates in the incarnational reality of Jesus. This is true imitation of Christ in the sense that St. Martin, in imitating the virtues of Christ, can, on occasion and through prayer, emulate Jesus' power over the supernatural world. Now, the Protestant in my twitches at that because I feel I have to add that this does not mean we should worship saints, but rather we need to remember that all this is done with God's power. Mind you, I'm sure St. Martin would agree.

Patristic Roundup-June 14-21st, 2007

Well, it seems that the coming of sumemr has begun to inspire people to dip into the Fathers again, so this week's roundup has been rather larger than normal with the return of several regulars to patristic postings. I'm sorry for being late with this batch, but I've been marking/doing report cards all week and this is the first I've had the chance to come up for air.

The Patristic Garden

Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers features St. Gregory of Nyssa on the 'maze of life', lets us know about a Patristic Greek Reader to practice our Greek with, highlights a Gary Michuta’s new bookWhy Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible. , discusses St. Athanasius in light of Pope Benedict's catechetical lecture, then follows up with the Zenit translation of the lecture, quotes St. Hilary of Poitiers and remembers St. Paulinus of Nola.

Will Weedon on Weedon's blog features St.Ambrose , St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and St. John Chyrostom again in his Patristic Quote of the Day feature.

Danny Garland on the Irish-Catholic and Dangerous blog features a quote of St. Cyril of Alexandria on Scripture, asks the same Cyril about why John wrote his Gospel, Origen about what a Gospel is,

Peter Rival on the Utter Muttering blog features a very favourable review of Mike Aquilina's The Way of the Fathers

Eric Rasmusen on Eric Rasmusen's Weblog asks us why we have to assume that the early Church was more pure or better than us.

PJP on the Recapturing Our Catholic Patrimony blog features an article reflecting on the Patristics fever among young Catholics and discusses Athanasius contra mundum in the light of Pope Benedict's catechetical lecture on him.

James Swan on the Beggars All blog features Theodoret of Cyrrhus in his Ancient Voices series.

Kevin Edgecomb on biblicalia features some reflections on the canon.

Rick Brannon on the Pastoral Epistles blog resumes his series on the use of the Pastoral Epistles by the Apostolic Fathers with sections from St. Ignatius's letters (parts six, seven and eight).

Ben Smith on the Thoughts on Antiquity blog returns to his series on the canon with a discussion of St. Cyril of Jerusalem's canon.
The Apocryphal Corner

April DeConick on The Forbidden Gospels blog announces her new website, reflects on orality, comments on an article on the Gospel of Judas by Tim Finlay and announces the publication of the critical edition of the Gospel of Judas.

Chrysostom for Dads

Today is Father's Day; my first as a dad which has me thinking, oddly enough, about St. John Chrysostom. Now, that isn't as random a connection as it might seem, largely because my reaction to the impending birth of my son was to read the St. Vladimir Press collection of sermons On Marriage and Family LIfe by St. John Chrysostom. In particular, I'm thinking about Homily 21 which discusses the famous family passage, Ephesians 6:1-4 which reads:

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ‘Honour your father and mother’—this is the first commandment with a promise: ‘so that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.’ And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

As a result of reflecting on this passage, John gives us worthwhile advice about family life and about being a Christian parent. He gives it in a context in which not enough attention is given to the art of Christian parenting; a context much like our own where the link between our Christian principles and our practice is not always manifested. In our modern world, we get so much advice about child-rearing, especially written in a psychological vein, that it is easy to just to follow that well-meant secular advice and not ask ourselves what God calls us to do as parents. Yet what does God call us to do as fathers?

According to John, there are three strands we need to look at:

First, we have to remember that our authority as fathers is not based in any kind of authoritarian power (in John's day, enforced by Roman law about the pater familias), but rather must be based on our (hopefully) common faith. That is, we are not commanded to do something contrary to God's will because our parents have told us to, but we obey our parents because we are told to do so because of the Lord's commands. In that sense, our faith should shine out in our treatment of our children and that faith and our love which comes from it will make it so that children will ultimately learn how to be obedient. Of course, the actual working out of this is hardly easy or clean, but family life is one of those areas where one learns the Christian virtues through trial and error on the part of both parents and children.

Second, John emphasizes the importance of bringing spirituality into the very life of the family. He particular emphasizes the reading of Scripture to children, confronting as he does a prejudice in his own society that it isn't necessary because 'we aren't raising monks', but people who have to get by in the world. This sense that knowing Scripture or focusing on spiritual things will make one no good for a worldly life was a common one at the time of John (judging by how often he criticizes it) and it is equally common now. Yet John argues that early Bible reading will serve to build the Christian character and virtues of a child so that, whatever he should decide to do, he has a solid foundation of faith to build upon and can avoid the obvious temptations and vices which he WILL find in the world.

I think this last point is an important one. One of the most important of our functions as parents is to teach our children about right and wrong. If we fail in that task, we are giving our children endless opportunities to go very wrong and have to work out for themselves, without the tools to do so, how to fix their lives. No parent is pefect, of course, and clearly, we need God to help us and to watch over our children. Still, we can prepare the ground by encouraging faith in our chidlren, by reading them the stories which we Christians value and trying to understand what they mean for us now. Christianity as a lived reality is, in many ways, recognizing ourselves as part of the story of Israel and the Gentile graft onto Israel in the name of Jesus Christ. If our children feel a part of that story, they will, hopefully, live their lives accordingly.

Third, John defines the ultimate goal of the Christian parent:

When we teach our children to be good, to be gentle, to be forgiving (all of thse are attributes of God), to be generous, to love their fellow men, to regard this present age as nothing, we instill virtues in their souls, and reveal the image of God within them. This, then, is our task: to educate both ourselves and our children in godliness

The list of virtues, I admit, is hardly new or original. They don't have to be. What is striking with this passage is that our role as Christian parent is not focused solely on our children. We have to foster virtue in our children, don't get me wrong, but also have to learn virtues and godliness. This is not a one-way street in which we feed our children information about how to be good people, but rather that we are learning how to be Christians and to be virtuous and godly as we live together as a family. This only confirms a realization I made early in my marriage that living in a Christian familiy is an askesis (a spiritual discipline) in the sense that we confront our weaknesses and faults in rubbing up against our spouses and children. By trying to overcome them, we set ourselves (and, hopefully, the rest of our family by our example) on the road to godliness and virtue; a road which we will not complete in this life, but which gives us hope for life to come.

I think this is ultimately what John is trying to say to us. We cannot act as fathers as some kind of authoritarian, you'll-do-it-because-I-tell-you-to kind of father, but rather that we set the example of living our familial askesis in a faithful way by following and imitating Christ's own example. As an aside, this is the biggest reason why I think that the current men's movement, which insists on reviving the the hidden image of the man as warrior, has the wrong end of the stick. Our example and our standard is Jesus Christ, not some distantly remembered and romanticized concept of the warrior. Frankly, learning to live faithfully and virtuously as a Christian is challenge enough.

So, I'm going to give St. John the last word on the subject by quoting the last words of this homily:

Therefore, let us be greatly concerned for our wives and children, and for ourselves as well, and as we educate both ourselves and them let us beg God to help us in our taslk. If He sees we care about this, He will help us; but if we are unconcerned, He will not give us his hand. God helps those who work, not those who are idle. No one helps an inactive person, but one who joins in the labour. The good God Himself will bring this work to perfection, so that all of us may be counted worthy of the blessing He has promised, through the grace and love for mankind of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, with whom, together with the Holy Spirit, be glory, honour and power to the Father, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen

Peace,
Phil

Patristic Roundup, June 7-14th, 2007

Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers offers us Fathers for Father's Day, features a discussion of Eusebius of Caesarea by Pope Benedict , recommends a new book by John Salza on the biblical basis of the papacy and directs us to the full Zenit account of Pope Benedict' discussion of Eusebius on Wednesday.

Will Weedon on Weedon's blog features St. Augustine, St. Ambrose , St. Ambrose again and St. Ambrose once more in his Patristic Quote of the Day.

drooellis on the Droo's Clues blog features a discussion of Origen and the Trinity.

biblicalchristian on the One Truth blog features quotations on why we shouldn't forget the Church Fathers.

Orycteropus Afer on Aardvark Alley discusses the Council of Nicaea.

Jim Bonewald on the church geek blog publishes a sermon on the Apostle's Creed.

Lawrence of Arabia on the revolt in the desert blog discuss the visual arts and the 7th ecumenical council.

Ryan Martin on the Immoderate blog features a discussion of the Fathers and spiritual gifts including a catena on the subject.

The Dyspraxic Fundamentalist on The Patristic Page blog is back from Japan (at last!) and with a vengeance. He has posted translations of St. Ephrem of Syria Against Bardanes and Chromatius of Aquileia's Prologue to the Gospel of St. Matthew.

The God Fearin' Fiddler on the God Fearin' Forum features a quote from St. Papias on the Importance of Tradition.

PJP on the Recapturing our Catholic Patrimony blog reflects on Pope Benedict's catechetical lecture on Eusebius of Caesaria and history.

Danny Garland on the Irish-Catholic and Dangerousblog quotes a Patristics song to the tune of Supercalafragalisticexpialadocius. I saw this a few years ago, but it is a good one!

Paul Gregory Alms on incarnatus est quotes Cyril of Jerusalem on turning west to east.


The Apocryphal Corner

April DeConick on The Forbidden Gospel blog alerts us to Alastair Logan's book, The Gnostics: Identifying a Christian Cult

St. Cyprian and Protestant Ecclesiology

This has been a week for St. Cyprian what with Pope Benedict using him as the basis of his catechetical reflection on last Wednesday. That has led to a small flurry of posts on Cyprian which I've watched smugly, realizing that I've already posted on Cyprian in previous post . Well, okay, I'm not really claiming Pope Benedict hopped on my bandwagon, but, I wonder....

Okay, in all seriousness, I was pleased to see the interest in St. Cyprian for pretty much the reason that I set out back in my earlier post. I really do think that St. Cyprian has an insight into ecclesiology and unity which we would do well to heed today. That Catholics appreciate this message, I think, goes without saying, even if I think that the quick identification of orthodoxy only with Rome is perhaps overstated. I don't want to open that particular can of worms today. Or, at least, I don't want to open it in quite the same way.

What I do want to talk about is how similar Cyprian's dilemma with Novatian is with the current multi-denominational universe. The dilemma for Cyprian in dealing with Novatian and his own confessors was that they were usually doctrinally orthodox, if, perhaps, a little too rigourous. The result was that it was not easy to accuse them of heresy on most of the normal grounds (gnosticism, docetism, trinitarian confusions etc). Rather they were schismatics which would seem to suggest a different order of problem.

We, moderns, want to separate schism and heresy, of course. We focus primarily on what constitutes orthodoxy, but what the term orthodox means today remains inherently slippery because the marks of orthodoxy shift and change according to the tradition, denomination and, yes, even the person involved. Given the fact that there is no one authoritative voice in Christianity (at least, undisputed; there are several claimants), it is difficult to know how one could find more precision in the term or in just what consitutes heresy or schism. All three of these terms are so fuzzy, I almost wonder that they continue to be used with any inherent meanings intact.

The reason for this fuzziness around thes terms may be that there remains no universally accepted Church, especially in the aftermath of the Reformation which fractured Western Christianity into a thousand pieces; many of which are busily splintering themselves into another thousand pieces. The result is a radical crisis of authority which afflicts all Christians even today. We all, Catholic, Orthodox and the whole variety of Protestants deal with the aftermath of this fragmentation every day and, contrary to the opinion of many, we are all responsible, not only for the initial divisions, but for their continuation. Not that there is any easy or neat solution.

For Cyprian, however, the problem of schismatics and heretics was much easier to deal with for the very good reason that there was one central authority recognized within most of the Christian world: the undivided Church. That is, anyone outside the Church was, by definition, a heretic. Thus, it didn't matter that Novatian agreed with Cyprian on almost all doctrinal issues. His separation from the legitimately ordained Bishop of Rome made him a heretic; possibly because his ecclesiology which permitted him to break into schism was faulty or possibly because Novatian's unbending attitude to the lapsed suggests a disregard for the operation of God's forgiveness and grace.

Yet, today, I don't think we have the luxury of presuming an undivided Church. For that, we can blame the Reformation and its aftermath. But we can't shift the all blame for this solely on either the Protestants or the Catholics. By rights, the Catholic Church would have found within itself the ability to deal with the legitimate concerns of the early Reformers and conduct an internal reform along the lines the Cluniac reforms in the 11th century (yes, I know these were monastic reforms, but their impact was considerable on the mediaeval church). Of course, the Reformers were hardly patient enough to wait for the Church to hear their calls for reform nor were they wise in their choice of allies (German territorial princes, who were notorious for wanting to extending their own power at the expense of the Holy Roman Emperor).

This is, I think the reason why most mainline denominations including Roman Catholicism recognize that Christians of other denominations are recognizably Christian, even if our differences preclude full communion with them. After several hundreds years of sharp denomination differences, I think we are starting to recognize some of our common bonds again. The process is slow and painful, but, from time to time, we can see progress towards getting along with each other, even in our differences.

Where does that leave us? In pretty much the same place as we were when we started. The disunity of contemporary Christianity is an important reason why we are unable to convince people that the message we bear to the world is from God. In the past, Romans would look at Christians and say 'See how they love each other'. While we are getting better, I'm not sure we're causing people to think that, except in isolated pockets. I don't have a good solution, but the problem remains urgent if we take seriously our mission as Christ's people in this world.

Peace,
Phil

Patristic Roundup-June 1-June 8, 2007

I think I've been a little spotty with my reporting this week, but, for what it is worth, here are my gleanings in the week that was patristics this week.

Patristic Garden

Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers blog reminds us of his extensive discussion about St. Justin Martyr, announce his new edition of his Mass of the Early Christians, , give his take on Pope Benedict's words on St. Cyprian,

Will Weedon on ,Weedon's Blog features Patristic Quotes of the Day by St Gregory of Nyssa, , St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Mark the Ascetic,

Roger Pierce on the Thoughts on Antiquity blog alerts us to the Oxford Patristics Conference in August. He also invites those with Greek and Latin to contribute to his open translation of Eusebius' Chronicle.

Benedict Seraphim on the This is Life! blog features a reflection on St. Gregory's Dialogue IV

Kenneth Samples on the Today's New Reason to Believe blog asks whether the doctrine of the Trinity is Biblical.

PJP on the Recapturing Our Catholic Patrimony blog discusses Pope Benedict's cathechetical discussions about St. Cyprian.

Father Z on the What Does the Prayer Really Say? blog features a discussion of Pope Benedict's comments about St. Cyprian. . He also alerts us to a podcast on Augustine and loving the Trinity too late.

James Siemens on the East and West blog quotes Pelikan on the authority of tradition.

Apocryphal Corner
Tony Chartrand-Burke on the Apocryphicity blog alerts us to his critical translation of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

April DeConick on The Forbidden Gospels blog alerts us to the Lost Christianities DVD lectures, considers what it would mean to meet Valentinus and alerts us to a useful guide on how to read Critical Apparatus'.

Sulpicius Severus, Life of St. Martin 10

Here is the new installment of the St. Martin saga. Here we learn about St. Martin's monastery and monastic vision.

Text:
I am not able to set out how great a man he proved to be after he took up the bishopric. For he persevered very firmly in the way of life he followed before. (2) He had the same humility in his heart, the same thrift in his clothing. He was full of authority and grace and fulfilled the dignity of bishop. Yet, he, nevertheless, did not abandon the lifestyle and virtues of a monk. (3) Therefore, for a long time, he used the cell which was connected to the side of the church. Then, when he was unable to bear the disturbance of those crowding around him, he established a monastery for himself almost two miles outside the town. (4) The place was so secret and remote that he did not miss the solitude of a hermit. On one side, it was bounded by a precipitous cliff of a high mountain. The river Loire shut in the remaining plain in a gradual sweep of the bay. It could only be reached by a narrow road. He himself had a cell built of wood, many of the brothers built cells in this way: (5) The majority made shelters for themselves by hollowing out the rock from the overhanging mountains. There were nearly eighty followers who were instructed in the example of their blessed master. (6) Nobody had anything of their own. Everything was owned in common. It was not permitted for them to buy or to sell as is the habit of most monks. No art was practiced there except that of the scribe in which duty the younger members were assigned, while the elders were freed up for prayer. (7) Rarely did anyone leave their cell unless they were gathering at the place for sermons. They all received food after the hour of fasting. No one knew wine unless some illness forced him to. (8) Most were clothed in camel hide; softer clothing was considered a crime. This must be considered the more astonishing because there were many nobles among them, who had been brought up very differently, but whom he urged to this humility and patience. The majority of them we have seen became bishops. (9) What city or church which does not desire a priest from the monastery of Martin?

Commentary:
Now that Martin is bishop, Severus moves on to set out the establishment of the monastery of St. Martin. Of course, Martin has been setting up monasteries as he moved around in northern Italy, Illyricum and Gaul, but he keeps finding either that he is crowded out by eager spiritual seekers or he is driven out by resentful ecclesial authorities. This is not an unusual state of affairs for a monastic life (as this one is in some ways), since even St. Antony had to move his hermitage several times in his life time.

This monastery is, of course, the final one and, like the final hermitage of Antony, it is all but inaccessible. That is, of course, rather the point because Martin is trying to establish a community outside the constraints of urban life in the Late Empire. Solitude, as a result, is necessary.

The rule at St. Martin's monastery is quite strict, as one would expect from the subject of a saint's life. The description tells us quite a bit about the monasticism of St. Martin's day; that it was starting to become laxer than Martin or the great ascetic athletes would tolerate. What Severus provides here is a picture of classic monasticism as a kind of template of the ascetic life as an antidote to easier, softer ways. The fact that work is not really a part of this monastery (except for copyists) points in that direction because it took the Benedictines to combine work and prayers as nearly equal elements of the monastic movement.

The comment about nobles is striking in this context. The implication is that the lifestyle of this monastery is not so far removed from the poor, but the adherence of a noble to this lifestyle which is so different from the lifestyle which they had grown accustomed to makes their discipline so much more remarkable. Mind you, Edward Gibbon would have a few harsh things to say about nobles pulling themselves out of Roman civil/political life, but this passages establishes Martin as the educator of bishops. This points to Martin's major influence on the development of the Gallic Church in the later 300s AD.

I admit that I tend to baulk at this kind of hard-core monasticism, largely because, all too often, it was based on a neo-Platonic contempt for the body which I neither find wholly biblical (yes, there are passages, notably in Paul's letters which could support it) nor consistent with a theology of a body characteristic of Judaism and a major element of early Christianity which sees body and soul was inseparable. While this is, at least, a monastic community as opposed to hermits (who themselves display an almost freakish devotion to a kind of ascetic Olympics in which one hermit strives to outdo his brothers in the severity of their body-denying disciplines), I worry about this particular version of monasticism. Perhaps I'm rather too used to Benedictine monasticism to entirely feel comfortable with this, admittedly, commendable monastic vision.

Yet, I also cannot deny the devotion of these ascetic athletes in prayer and in trying to make themselves develop spiritually. There is, clearly, much wisdom in the monastic tradition, even for those of us involved in the world. That wisdom explains the appeal of monasticism over the ages, both as a calling and as a source for non-monastics to find wisdom. St. Martin is a little hardcore, but not crazy about it. No one was tying themselves onto pillars or indulging too much in self-flagellation, it seems in this community. Instead, what we have is a community of prayer which is rather the point of the monastic vision.

Of course, we can learn much from this vision. In our particularly consumerist society, the idea of holding property in common is just plain strange and subversive. The idea of not going out to buy and sell is positively freakish. I am, of course, just as enmeshed in the consumer society we find ourselves in today. One does have to buy things, especially when one has a family to support and take care of. Nor would I say that is bad in itself. Ideally, buying and selling is what is necessary to get what we need to have for ourselves and families and, if engaged upon with honestly and integrity, can be an honourable profession. What is problematic in our culture is the compulsion to buy which infects our mass media and individual desires. St. Martin speaks against that compulsion both to his own culture and our own.

Peace,
Phil