Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

[Thekla]

some ECFs on the scriptures:

The best way to find what is fitting for one’s life is to meditate upon the divinely inspired Scriptures.
- St. Basil the Great (329-379AD)


Ignorance of the Scriptures is a great cliff and a deep abyss. Not knowing the Scriptures is the cause of all evils. Reading the Scriptures is like possessing a great treasure. A Christian cannot help but read the Scriptures. To be a Christian is to rejoice in the power of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit speaks to us through the Scriptures.
- St. John Chrysostom (354-407AD)


Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.
- St. Jerome (347-420AD)

The holy occupation of the reading of the Scriptures is a light to the mind, a guide on the path and an inspiration during prayer.
- St. Issac the Syrian (7th century AD)


The words of the Scriptures are written for us not simply to understand them but also to do them.
- St. Hesychios of Jerusalem (4th century AD)

and St. John Chrysostom again, as quoted by Fr. Seraphim Rose:

'I exhort you, and I will not cease to exhort you to pay heed not only to what is said here, but when you are home also you should occupy yourselves attentively with the reading of Holy Scripture. Let no one say to me such cold words-worthy of judgment---as these: 'I am occupied with a trial, I have obligations in the city, I have a wife, I have to feed my children, and it is not my duty to read the Scripture but the duty of those who have renounced everything.' What are you saying?! It is not your duty to read Scripture because you are distracted by innumerable cares? On the contrary, it is your duty more than those others, more than the monks; they do not have such need of help as do you who live in the midst of such cares. You need treatment all the more, because you are constantly under such blows and are wounded so often. The reading of Scripture is a great defense against sin. Ignorance of the Scripture is a great misfortune, a great abyss. Not to know anything from the word of God is a disaster. This is what has given rise to heresies, to immorality; it has turned everything upside down."

 

[beamishboy]

Yeah I figured zealot or simon or stz meant I could call her philo but naw just like montalban they are HIGH church and play EVERY part of it.
One might guess they were englishmen from the Anglican church no offense to BB or albion...Just speaking in general they play the snobbery part to the teeeeees

Hi Simon,

No, Montalban is an Aussie. All Aussies love England and officially, to this day, my Queen is the Head of their country but they are not Englishmen or British. Far from it! You can tell us apart from our accents; I'd like to think ours is polished and more stylish. You can also tell us apart from the words we use when we post online. Anglian, for example, is a fellow Englishman, and as it naturally should follow, a gentleman too. Hence you will see in our posts a more measured use of the language (hey! it's OUR language). Hehe.

 

[beamishboy]

Thekla do you like to be called The? if not you also belong to the High church....lol......

How come you guys are so sensitive? I've been called bb, beamish, beam, beamy, beams, beamers, little one (by Philothei, no less!), kiddo (by Simon but then I am a novice to Simonthezealot in the holy order of Protestant Zealotry and any name from him is acceptable) but I have never raised a single objection. I don't feel hurt, angry or upset and I didn't know people would until Montalban snapped at me for calling him "Monty". Is this an example of adults' PRIDE?

 

[Rick Otto]

no, Philothei has a different meaning than Philo , and the endings are not the same gender

so, if Simonia or Rickia is okay with you guys ...

Theky, you can call me whatever you want because I don't care what I'm called as much as I do the way I'm called it. You've never been harsh toward me.

 

[Rick Otto]

Is this an example of adults' PRIDE?

Yes, your Beamishness.
Y'all may henceforth refer to me as "Lord Bunsworthy".

 

[beamishboy]

Yes, your Beamishness.
Y'all may henceforth refer to me as "Lord Bunsworthy".

My Lord Bunsworthy,

If I may be allowed to talk about the future, the time will come when you guys will really have to call me Lord Beamishboy. Hehe. I'm not sure if Americans will call someone "My Lord" (knowing how rebellious they can be; hehe) but I'm sure my fellow Brits and those in our Colonies eg Montalban will do so. Australia has traditionally shown the greatest homage to the British Royal Family and the British Peerage.

But fortunately for everyone, the beamishboy is not at all bothered about externals.

 

[Montalban]

Hi Simon,

No, Montalban is an Aussie. All Aussies love England and officially, to this day, my Queen is the Head of their country but they are not Englishmen or British. Far from it! You can tell us apart from our accents; I'd like to think ours is polished and more stylish. You can also tell us apart from the words we use when we post online. Anglian, for example, is a fellow Englishman, and as it naturally should follow, a gentleman too. Hence you will see in our posts a more measured use of the language (hey! it's OUR language). Hehe.

I could just as easily say "She is MY queen and is the head of YOUR country". However it serves enough to point out that whilst you all cry foul of personalising debate, that's exactly what you're doing now.

 

[Montalban]

I don't feel hurt, angry or upset and I didn't know people would until Montalban snapped at me for calling him "Monty". Is this an example of adults' PRIDE?[/SIZE]

Since we must go off-topic with this...

Firstly, my UserName was gained though some thought. It has value for me. For someone to just arbitrarily changing it suggest a familiarity we do not have (nor do I want to have). We are not friends. Let's keep this as 'professional' as possible.

I must note again that whilst you guys cry foul about personalising of posts you are more than happy to take such liberties as just noted above. And, you continued with such even AFTER I expressed my dislike for said.

Shall we return to the topic of the thread?

 

[Anglian]

Dear Montalban,

Yes, it really would be a good thing to get back to the theme.

Earlier, it was suggested that there might be up to four types of opinion being offered on the OP:

• those who have read the ECFs and value them for the edification they provide
• those who have no read them and see no reason to
• those who see no reason to value them, but may, or may not, have read them
• those who value them but have not read them much

One straw man has now, I hope, been thoroughly burnt - no one is asserting, or has argued, that the ECFs are infallible.
Second smouldering straw man - no one is asserting or has argued that the ECFs have canonical status and are equal to Holy Scripture.

What is being maintained is that in the Orthodox Tradition, the ECFs, along with the canon of Scripture which their writings helped establish, and the Councils and the Liturgy, work as a unity to help moderate the natural tendency of sinful mankind to assume that our own reading of Scripture is always correct.

Those whose tradition holds that they can interpret Scripture aright without any aid save that of the Holy Spirit, will naturally hold they need no other help. But if we want to argue that point, as opposed to asserting it, it might be better to do it on one of the many threads on Sola Scriptura.

Much earlier, I offered a discussion on the 'brothers and sisters' of Our Lord which showed how Holy Tradition works, and how the ECFs can help us when even learned theologians can reach no consensus on the 'plain word' of the Bible. Demonstrations of why the ECFs don't matter have been short on the ground in this long thread - certainly shorter than assertions to that effect.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Montalban]

Dear Montalban,

Yes, it really would be a good thing to get back to the theme.

Cool. Someone suggested that I don't understand sola scriptura and left it at that - I'd have thought that if they believed I didn't understand it, that they might offer an explanation.

Oh, well. Conversely you and others have admirably explained what Holy Tradition is - that Holy Tradition does not deal Scripture out.

It is a straw-man of others to quote ECFs in an effort to prove to us that we have a 'tradition' of people who argue sola scriptura

We could return to questions such as "Where in Scriptures does it say scriptures are to be held as prime authority?" but these sort of challenges - not met so far - will continue to be avoided.

I see at least you're interested in continuing with discussion. Perhaps we'll have to find a bone of contention and argue amongst ourselves

 

[Anglian]

Dear Montalban,

Well, way back the other day we almost got a discussion off the ground about the interpretations offered by the Fathers of the Scriptural references to the Lord's 'brothers and sisters', but no one has taken that one up.

It would be good to know whether those who say that the ECFs have no real value have actually read them very widely. I've been reading them for getting on for thirty years, and could claim close acquaintance only with the Apostolic Fathers, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, The Cappadocian Fathers, St. Athanasius and St. Cyril of Alexandria. In my own tradition, St. Severus of Antioch, St. Ephrem the Syrian, and Jacob Bar-Hebraeus, are my most referenced Fathers. But the one I admire above all, is St. Isaac of Nineveh - a bishop in a so-called Nestorian Church who is revered by Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans.

I do get the impression that much of the hostility to the ECFs has more to do with enmity towards the RCC than to anything the ECFs actually wrote, if only from the frequency with which things have been written which have nothing to do with the Orthodox understanding of these matters.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Montalban]

Dear Montalban,

Well, way back the other day we almost got a discussion off the ground about the interpretations offered by the Fathers of the Scriptural references to the Lord's 'brothers and sisters', but no one has taken that one up.

It would be good to know whether those who say that the ECFs have no real value have actually read them very widely. I've been reading them for getting on for thirty years, and could claim close acquaintance only with the Apostolic Fathers, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, The Cappadocian Fathers, St. Athanasius and St. Cyril of Alexandria. In my own tradition, St. Severus of Antioch, St. Ephrem the Syrian, and Jacob Bar-Hebraeus, are my most referenced Fathers. But the one I admire above all, is St. Isaac of Nineveh - a bishop in a so-called Nestorian Church who is revered by Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans.

I do get the impression that much of the hostility to the ECFs has more to do with enmity towards the RCC than to anything the ECFs actually wrote, if only from the frequency with which things have been written which have nothing to do with the Orthodox understanding of these matters.

peace,

Anglian

Without wishing to start another argument, I always use the ECFs when arguing with Catholics over such issues as the Papacy. I also use the Councils.

For my own bug-bear I think it's a pity no one here (on the other side) wished to take up the fact that the Trinity, whilst it is in the Bible is not defined by the Bible - the fact heretics also used the Bible in their argument I thought interesting

Anyway I'm off to watch the Olympic opening ceremony.

For some reason Australia is going to be third last (must be the Chinese way of saying Australia - because (except for Greece, and the host nation) they come out in alphabetical order)

 

[Thekla]

I do think the ECFs have left a legacy that is not often recognized, as their influence is
pervasive - the undertanding of the Trinity has become part of the }"water we swim in".
In the East, their writings and teachings helped to maintain the Jewish understanding of the Fall and the Law, where the commandments of God are understaood as 'formative/developmental' in nature ( not punitive or juridicial). Further, due to the secular education of some, they were able to identify and fight the dangers of secular philosophy entering Christianity.
In hymnography, they summarized scripture but also expounded within the hymn in such a way that Biblical terminology and spiritual appreciation of Biblical events did not succumb to the evolution of meaning. In short, they maintained or froze the definition of words used in the Bible, so that as the language evolved, the Bibblical teachings did not evolve in kind with the secular language.
In short, they helped to 'erect the fence' around the Church so that she might remain truly 'set aside/agia' to Christ.

 

[Anglian]

I do think the ECFs have left a legacy that is not often recognized, as their influence is
pervasive - the undertanding of the Trinity has become part of the }"water we swim in".
In the East, their writings and teachings helped to maintain the Jewish understanding of the Fall and the Law, where the commandments of God are understaood as 'formative/developmental' in nature ( not punitive or juridicial). Further, due to the secular education of some, they were able to identify and fight the dangers of secular philosophy entering Christianity.
In hymnography, they summarized scripture but also expounded within the hymn in such a way that Biblical terminology and spiritual appreciation of Biblical events did not succumb to the evolution of meaning. In short, they maintained or froze the definition of words used in the Bible, so that as the language evolved, the Bibblical teachings did not evolve in kind with the secular language.
In short, they helped to 'erect the fence' around the Church so that she might remain truly 'set aside/agia' to Christ.

Dear Thekla,

Montalban and yourself both make excellent points. That so many here have said that the Trinity is clearly implied from the Scriptures shows how, indeed, the ECFs have become 'part of the water we swim in'. There are no explicit statements in the Bible that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are of one essence, or that they are coeval. There were early Christians who believed that the Spirit was a creature subordinate to the Father and Son, and there were those who thought the Son a creature and subordinate to the Father; even as there were those who thought the Son and the Spirit simply aspects of the Father. Some of these ideas are given renewed life in some gnostic circles today, but they have long been rejected as orthodox ideas.

At some point an interesting discussion might be had on the differences between the Western emphasis on the Church as judge, and the Easter one on the Church as spiritual hospital. I get an early sense of this in John Cassian's writings as opposed to those of St. Augustine. Indeed, one of St. Augustine's ideas, the emphasis on prevenient grace, became, via a long route, an important part of Calvinism.

Here, however, I can only wish that I had read more St. Augustine than I have. Owen Chadwick's book on Cassian provides and excellent summary of his teaching, and of the differences with St. Augustine; Fr. John Meyendorff's Imperial Unity also contains and excellent discussion of this issue.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

deleted double posting

 

[Anglian]

Dear Thelka,

I hope we can take up some of the points you raise in your posts; you offer us a variety of ways we might take this.

peace,

Anglian

 

[jamescarvin]

Dear Montalban,

Yes, it really would be a good thing to get back to the theme.


Earlier, it was suggested that there might be up to four types of opinion being offered on the OP:

• those who have read the ECFs and value them for the edification they provide
• those who have no read them and see no reason to
• those who see no reason to value them, but may, or may not, have read them
• those who value them but have not read them much

One straw man has now, I hope, been thoroughly burnt - no one is asserting, or has argued, that the ECFs are infallible.
Second smouldering straw man - no one is asserting or has argued that the ECFs have canonical status and are equal to Holy Scripture.

What is being maintained is that in the Orthodox Tradition, the ECFs, along with the canon of Scripture which their writings helped establish, and the Councils and the Liturgy, work as a unity to help moderate the natural tendency of sinful mankind to assume that our own reading of Scripture is always correct.

Those whose tradition holds that they can interpret Scripture aright without any aid save that of the Holy Spirit, will naturally hold they need no other help. But if we want to argue that point, as opposed to asserting it, it might be better to do it on one of the many threads on Sola Scriptura.

Much earlier, I offered a discussion on the 'brothers and sisters' of Our Lord which showed how Holy Tradition works, and how the ECFs can help us when even learned theologians can reach no consensus on the 'plain word' of the Bible. Demonstrations of why the ECFs don't matter have been short on the ground in this long thread - certainly shorter than assertions to that effect.

Peace,

Anglian

This is a good summary. One of Anglian's many on target posts. Bearing this in mind, if I failed to offer this before, or if it got passed by due to personal discussions, I will do so now again: we have Biblical prophecy (Malachi 4:5-6) that indicate that when Elijah comes (still future - Matthew 17:11) he will restore the hearts of the fathers to the children. This does two things.

1. It shows their importance in the eyes of God
2. It focuses on the heart, not the letter

The Orthodox mindset is to live the Christian life as children of God according to the hearts of the fathers. Those responsible for carrying forward the faith once handed to the saints (Jude 1:9) unchanged (those we call priests or fathers) also must remain genuine to this mindset. The notion that there must be a restoration to this indicates that all have failed. We call this apostasy. We ought to work together to search out the hearts of the fathers, looking to the Scriptures (since the apostles also were the church fathers) and to their writings.

I believe that not only do they have value, but that they are central to the restoration of all things, which is not just an outward superficial unity but a humble commitment to truth that calls for reform and even restoration in all branches of faith.

In an environment where all we get is a defense of positions that humble commitment is missing. All have sinned and fall short of the glory, even institutional religions which cherish the fathers as their treasure. We need to transcend our defensive stance, relax, and let the fathers dictate for us, what direction the reformation and restoration of the church should take in these last days. We have in them a common source for unity, as we also have in Christ. We don't need to slice history according to the weapons we have fashioned for ourselves. Lets turn them into plow shares, shall we?

 

[Anglian]

Dear Montalban,

The ECFs are, of course, our common heritage - which is why it is such a shame that so many do not read them.

Hope you enjoyed the Olympics ceremony.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[jamescarvin]

Dear Montalban,

Yes, it really would be a good thing to get back to the theme.


Earlier, it was suggested that there might be up to four types of opinion being offered on the OP:

• those who have read the ECFs and value them for the edification they provide
• those who have no read them and see no reason to
• those who see no reason to value them, but may, or may not, have read them
• those who value them but have not read them much

One straw man has now, I hope, been thoroughly burnt - no one is asserting, or has argued, that the ECFs are infallible.
Second smouldering straw man - no one is asserting or has argued that the ECFs have canonical status and are equal to Holy Scripture.

What is being maintained is that in the Orthodox Tradition, the ECFs, along with the canon of Scripture which their writings helped establish, and the Councils and the Liturgy, work as a unity to help moderate the natural tendency of sinful mankind to assume that our own reading of Scripture is always correct.

Those whose tradition holds that they can interpret Scripture aright without any aid save that of the Holy Spirit, will naturally hold they need no other help. But if we want to argue that point, as opposed to asserting it, it might be better to do it on one of the many threads on Sola Scriptura.

Much earlier, I offered a discussion on the 'brothers and sisters' of Our Lord which showed how Holy Tradition works, and how the ECFs can help us when even learned theologians can reach no consensus on the 'plain word' of the Bible. Demonstrations of why the ECFs don't matter have been short on the ground in this long thread - certainly shorter than assertions to that effect.

Peace,

Anglian

This is a good summary. One of Anglian's many on target posts. Bearing this in mind, if I failed to offer this before, or if it got passed by due to personal discussions, I will do so now again: we have Biblical prophecy (Malachi 4:5-6) that indicate that when Elijah comes (still future - Matthew 17:11) he will restore the hearts of the fathers to the children. This does two things.

1. It shows their importance in the eyes of God
2. It focuses on the heart, not the letter

The Orthodox mindset is to live the Christian life as children of God according to the hearts of the fathers. Those responsible for carrying forward the faith once handed to the saints (Jude 1:9) unchanged (those we call priests or fathers) also must remain genuine to this mindset. The notion that there must be a restoration to this indicates that all have failed. We call this apostasy. We ought to work together to search out the hearts of the fathers, looking to the Scriptures (since the apostles also were the church fathers) and to their writings.

I believe that not only do they have value, but that they are central to the restoration of all things, which is not just an outward superficial unity but a humble commitment to truth that calls for reform and even restoration in all branches of faith.

In an environment where all we get is a defense of positions that humble commitment is missing. All have sinned and fall short of the glory, even institutional religions which cherish the fathers as their treasure. We need to transcend our defensive stance, relax, and let the fathers dictate for us, what direction the reformation and restoration of the church should take in these last days. We have in them a common source for unity, as we also have in Christ. We don't need to slice history according to the weapons we have fashioned for ourselves. Lets turn them into plow shares, shall we?

 

[simonthezealot]

Your quotes aren't 'full context'. I admit you link to the full context, but that's not what you post, you sound-bites which are thus out of context. They are out of context as I demonstrated how, for instance two are taken out of context, one regarding 'jests' and another regarding a Council ruling.

I fully appreciate the fact you link to the context, because one can then see how you've cherry-picked

I'm sorry that you feel that I lack respect because I see you posting cherry-picked quotes.

Perhaps if I agree with you, you'll think I'm respecting you?

Nope you attempt to charge me with cherry picking because you're reading the full context with a presupposition to disagree with me.

Your lack of respect has came in a number of manners the one obvious one was the post that questioned MY faith.

BTW as soon as you asked ME not to shorten your name I obliged. Sorry if I offended.

As to me not responding to any posts of yours or me taking a week...Take a look through this thread Montalban you have 200+ posts I am sure I have missed a number of questions...

Make NO mistake about it when you're painting a picture of me as one who is afraid to respond to questions tough or not is to deny my history here at CF, ask any number of the people I deal most with that have diametrically opposite views; MrPolo, Jackthecatholic, Joab, Lionroar, kristos, ask any of them. I do NOT dodge!