How Dependable are Apostolic Fathers Writings?

[Markie Boy]

I posted this in OBOB - but would appreciate Orthodox thoughts on this too. Read - Orthodox only replies here please.

Does anyone know how dependable the writings we have of the Apostolic Fathers are? Especially Ignatius of Antioch?

It seems we don't have many copies. I read at first there were 15 letters of Ignatius, then 8 of them were deemed apocryphal. Of the seven left there are some variations that make me pause.

With my dis-trust of the institution of Catholicism, I am wondering if at times they altered them to support what they wanted. We just seem to have scant few copies to verify things - nothing at all like the New Testament where there are copies a mile high.

 

[HTacianas]

I posted this in OBOB - but would appreciate Orthodox thoughts on this too. Read - Orthodox only replies here please.

Does anyone know how dependable the writings we have of the Apostolic Fathers are? Especially Ignatius of Antioch?

It seems we don't have many copies. I read at first there were 15 letters of Ignatius, then 8 of them were deemed apocryphal. Of the seven left there are some variations that make me pause.

With my dis-trust of the institution of Catholicism, I am wondering if at times they altered them to support what they wanted. We just seem to have scant few copies to verify things - nothing at all like the New Testament where there are copies a mile high.

I posted this reply to your question at the OBOB forum:

The writings of the Church Fathers are as reliable as they can be. While there are what we would in modern times call forgeries, even those were not created for any nefarious reasons. Most of them, and some books attributed to the apostles, are what we might call fan fiction today.

Now, before my Catholic friends come along and kick me out, what causes the distrust you feel toward the Roman Church?

 

[Markie Boy]

First - I'm struggling to trust the Roman Church's teaching on transubstantiation. The real presence get easier in a mystical sense that can't fully be grasped, but honestly I struggle a bit.

I guess Vatican I is something that really put me back in trusting Rome, as well as mandatory celibacy. Things that just seem to be a departure from Apostolic ways. Once you open that door to not trusting Rome, where do you stop?

 

[ArmyMatt]

the Apostolic Fathers are reliable, just remember that since they were early, their language and articulation is much less polished than once you get to the time of the Ecumenical Councils.

 

[All4Christ]

Agreed.

One more note - the consensus of the fathers is critical. The Church Fathers weren’t perfect on an individual basis, though they certainly were reliable. The consensus of the Fathers on the other hand is even more reliable in our view.

 

[E.C.]

the Apostolic Fathers are reliable, just remember that since they were early, their language and articulation is much less polished than once you get to the time of the Ecumenical Councils.

Repeating for truthiness.

First - I'm struggling to trust the Roman Church's teaching on transubstantiation. The real presence get easier in a mystical sense that can't fully be grasped, but honestly I struggle a bit.

I guess Vatican I is something that really put me back in trusting Rome, as well as mandatory celibacy. Things that just seem to be a departure from Apostolic ways. Once you open that door to not trusting Rome, where do you stop?

Without going too much into Catholicism, the problem with transubstatiation is that it inadequately tries to explain the unexplainable. It came out sometime around the 11th or 12th centuries when scholasticism and rationalism were all the rage in Western Europe.

Vatican I was a crock. Yeah, the Pope is no longer the sovereign of his own state and than suddenly finds it convenient to say that his word is supreme and infallible
Ironically, Vatican I was one of the things that pushed me from Catholicism. Same with priestly celibacy when you learn it was all about real estate disputes.

 

[Markie Boy]

I held back from that one - but priestly celibacy is another huge one for me. It shows they are willing to go against both Scripture and the early Church, to gain what they want.

I think it's a huge reason that they don't know how to connect with people.

 

[Lukaris]

I think a reputable collection of these writings is probably necessary for ex.:

Early Christian Writings

 

[Markie Boy]

I think a reputable collection of these writings is probably necessary for ex.:

Early Christian Writings

I actually have that book! You consider it a good source???

 

[Euodius]

They are reliable. Some of them are quite significant.

 

[E.C.]

I held back from that one - but priestly celibacy is another huge one for me. It shows they are willing to go against both Scripture and the early Church, to gain what they want.

I think it's a huge reason that they don't know how to connect with people.

I'd agree with the last statement quite a bit. There have been times in Orthodoxy when a bishop visits and somebody would ask a question about married life. That bishop, coming from a monastic background, would refer them back to the parish priest saying, "I can help you with canons on this, but not necessarily everything. I've never been married. Your priest is married, ask him this question".

 

[Lukaris]

I actually have that book! You consider it a good source???

Yes, the revised translation is from an Orthodox theologian: Andrew Louth. See: Andrew Louth - Wikipedia.

 

[rusmeister]

Agreed.

One more note - the consensus of the fathers is critical. The Church Fathers weren’t perfect on an individual basis, though they certainly were reliable. The consensus of the Fathers on the other hand is even more reliable in our view.

I’ll just say here that the challenges I am running up against where I am are to that consensus. I see the idea of consensus as under attack. Maybe that rates a separate thread.

 

[Euodius]

I’ll just say here that the challenges I am running up against where I am are to that consensus. I see the idea of consensus as under attack. Maybe that rates a separate thread.

It probably is worth a thread. It's also common to put modern academic gibberish over the consensus of the fathers - often after denying the consensus by pointing to the exception rather the rule. Why? Because much of the consensus isn't popular with the ideas and the spirit of this age.

 

[All4Christ]

I’ll just say here that the challenges I am running up against where I am are to that consensus. I see the idea of consensus as under attack. Maybe that rates a separate thread.

It’s a good topic. The patristic consensus is critical. Any one of us could focus on one Church Father and likely get something wrong - if we don’t pay attention to the consensus. A recent thread about the Hospitality of Abraham had an example of this. The tough part is actually knowing what the consensus is. I love reading, but I certainly don’t have the time to read all the church fathers on a topic and determine the consensus. Some of their writings aren’t even translated into English! The internet is a great source for reading the Fathers, but I also look to the Church and resources the Church gives us to learn what the consensus is, backed by the patristics of the Church.

 

[ArmyMatt]

the consensus is always under attack. that's what makes the heretic heretical.