The need for Patristics

[The camel]

Patristics - the study of the writings of the Fathers in the early Church, seems to be something which Catholics are not very good at. I am often amazed at how many Catholics know far more about modern devotions than the basic Christological questions, for example, debated and settled in the first few centuries of the Church's existence. Now I am biased, of course, as a historian of late antiquity - the period in question - but I think it crucial for a mature apologetics. I wonder if anyone else here has had any exposure to the early Church.

In my Anglican youth, sermons by Oxford educated priests would generally be littered with Patristic references. That does not happen in the Catholic Church.

[Not The Philosopher]

A good knowledge of Patristics is a boon indeed.

The seminary I study at (as a layman) does a pretty decent job of getting students' feet wet with the Church Fathers, the first seven Councils, etc.

Even before I started my degree, I was already reading up on them. I kinda thought at first that I might wind up specializing in Patristics, but my interests have gone another route.

[Era Might]

I love history, are you a professional historian?

[Nihil Obstat]

My experience has been that Catholics are the only ones that care about the Patristic writings. Perhaps high church Anglicans are different.

The Fathers are explicitly Catholic as far as I am concerned. 

[CatherineM]

Loved my patristics course. 

[Luigi]

I suppose patristics is essential for people who study theology, history of theology, comparative theology, and so forth, but I've gotten this far in life without it, and I don't feel I'm missing out on much.

The Catholic Church aims to be universal - making the faith available to everyone, including the uneducated masses that have attended Masses throughout most of the centuries.

How the Church arrived at the Truth is of less importance than the Truth it arrived at. That's what needs to be preached and practiced. In the same way that car designers may be fascinated by the evolution of cars, but me? I just want to get from Point A to Point B. 

[Catlick]

In my Anglican youth, sermons by Oxford educated priests would generally be littered with Patristic references. That does not happen in the Catholic Church.

​In my Protestant youth, the only Church Father cited in sermons would be St. Augustine. My impression is that Patristics is trendy among more orthodox Protestant theologians, but that this hasn't (yet) trickled down to the sermons.

Most Protestant interest in the early Church (Fathers) is merely a product of what Pius XII called 'antiquarianism': a sickly love for that which is 'original', without regard of later developments.

[The camel]

Thank you for all the comments.

One of the virtues of the Fathers is that they come before most of the current divisions in Christendom. They are precious to the Orthodox, of course, who naturally have a preference for the Greek over the Latin Fathers. I once had a discussion with an Athonite monk who told me that Augustine was a heretic, and that Pelagianism was the official teaching of the Orthodox Church! A somewhat eccentric view, I would think.

Protestants also often love the Fathers. Luther was an Augustinian Canon, and he, and Calvin, used Augustine's views on Grace to justify their own position. They would have had even less sympathy with my Athonite monk interlocutor than I did.

The Anglican approach is different. Luther claimed sola scriptura. Anglicans looked to recreate the early Church and often came to love it. To apply the term archaeologism to it is maybe a bit unfair, and certainly anachronistic. It was driven by, and also created, real scholarship. That persists in some places, most notably Oxford. The Ordinary of the North American Ordinariate is an Oxford educated patristics scholar. I hope part of the 'Anglican Patrimony' that the Ordinariates bring to the Catholic Church may be intellectual.

Protestant interest in the Fathers is seen, for example, in IVP (a protestant publishing house) bringing out a 29 volume Patristic commentary on the scripture. While trying to use a range of Patristic sources, it has a certain 'spin', understandably. Sadly Catholics seem generally happy to leave the Fathers to Protestants, which seems odd. A friend of mine is involved in similar venture, but it will be in German, not English.

One should not ignore the apologetic value of the Fathers. Many have been converted by studying the early Church, not least Bl john Henry Newman, and becoming convinced that it finds its continuity in the present Catholic Church.

Moreover, with the ignorance of so many Catholics, due to poor (or none existent) catechesis, there is a danger of the old heresies reappearing. Pelagianism is, I think, pretty rife. Also Arianism. I find young Catholics who, having been brought up in almost total ignorance of the Faith, and wanting more, latch onto all sorts of things. Often they do not know about the nature of Christ, but will argue about the need for the second confiteor at Mass, or obsess about, say, Medjugorje (and what point the Theotokos, without a correct understanding of Christ's divinity and humanity).

So I do think the Fathers are vital. But how to make them better known and loved? That is the question I have.

[Era Might]

One of the virtues of the Fathers is that they come before most of the current divisions in Christendom. They are precious to the Orthodox, of course, who naturally have a preference for the Greek over the Latin Fathers. I once had a discussion with an Athonite monk who told me that Augustine was a heretic, and that Pelagianism was the official teaching of the Orthodox Church! A somewhat eccentric view, I would think.

...

So I do think the Fathers are vital. But how to make them better known and loved? That is the question I have.

​Not at all eccentric if we consider that the Fathers do not actually come before the current divisions in Christendom. There was just as much contention in the early church as any other time. The idealization of "the Fathers" as a purer time in church history, I'd argue, is itself a modern thing. Post-Trent there was a sort of vague idea of "Tradition" that was being formalized to legitimate the church as a firm, single entity throughout history. The East kind of ossified around the Greek fathers because they were much more invested in the Byzantine empire, etc. The west was a disparate group of different areas (Gaul, Spain, Italy, Germany) with very loose connections, it took a long time for the papacy to become the monolithic power it became. The fact that the West kept moving and dealing with new questions had a lot to do with the fact that it didn't become ossified like the East, though one could argue that this did happen in the West after Trent (until the church had to try something new with Vatican II). Every age has its own questions and context in which it asks and answers those questions. To look at the Fathers in a monolithic way is not really historical...Augustine was a 4th century bishop in North Africa, quite a ways away from a 2nd century bishop in Rome or an 8th century bishop in Constantinople.

From a spiritual perspective, the Divine Office still includes writings from the Fathers in the Office of Readings...that's probably the ideal context in which a layperson is going to encounter their writings, unless they happen to be heavy readers.

[The camel]

​Not at all eccentric if we consider that the Fathers do not actually come before the current divisions in Christendom. There was just as much contention in the early church as any other time. The idealization of "the Fathers" as a purer time in church history, I'd argue, is itself a modern thing. Post-Trent there was a sort of vague idea of "Tradition" that was being formalized to legitimate the church as a firm, single entity throughout history. The East kind of ossified around the Greek fathers because they were much more invested in the Byzantine empire, etc. The west was a disparate group of different areas (Gaul, Spain, Italy, Germany) with very loose connections, it took a long time for the papacy to become the monolithic power it became. The fact that the West kept moving and dealing with new questions had a lot to do with the fact that it didn't become ossified like the East, though one could argue that this did happen in the West after Trent (until the church had to try something new with Vatican II). Every age has its own questions and context in which it asks and answers those questions. To look at the Fathers in a monolithic way is not really historical...Augustine was a 4th century bishop in North Africa, quite a ways away from a 2nd century bishop in Rome or an 8th century bishop in Constantinople.

From a spiritual perspective, the Divine Office still includes writings from the Fathers in the Office of Readings...that's probably the ideal context in which a layperson is going to encounter their writings, unless they happen to be heavy readers.

​The major divisions which persist, between the East and the Wets, and within the west, do postdate the patristic period. Any major lack of communio in sacris which existed then has, with the exception of the division with the Oriental churches, long since been repaired. 

The Fathers were closer in time to the origins of Christianity, and that in itself makes them important, I would suggest. They also are the origins of much of what we have today. 

I accept, of course, the great diversity of late antiquity, both chronologically and geographically. That is exactly why context is so important, and simply encountering snippets of the Fathers in the office is likely to lead to a facile understanding. Sustained study is needed. What I wonder if some sort of online seminar would be a possibility? I am, however, at a loss as to how it could be achieved.

[Era Might]

​The major divisions which persist, between the East and the Wets, and within the west, do postdate the patristic period. Any major lack of communio in sacris which existed then has, with the exception of the division with the Oriental churches, long since been repaired. 

The Fathers were closer in time to the origins of Christianity, and that in itself makes them important, I would suggest. They also are the origins of much of what we have today. 

I accept, of course, the great diversity of late antiquity, both chronologically and geographically. That is exactly why context is so important, and simply encountering snippets of the Fathers in the office is likely to lead to a facile understanding. Sustained study is needed. What I wonder if some sort of online seminar would be a possibility? I am, however, at a loss as to how it could be achieved.

​I look at "spiritualities" as sort of personalities, and I doubt the average person is going to have a spirituality of the kind that you would get by a serious historical reading of the Fathers. It requires a certain theologically-focused spirituality, as opposed to, say, charismatic, or devotional, or contemplative, etc. (the traditional "personalities" of the modern west). I recently read Pseudo-Dionysius, who is not a Father but was an anonymous 6th century writer very influential with the medievals. I enjoyed it, but most people would probably rather read something like the Imitation of Christ (which I also like, but a very different kind of work).

I guess there are different ways of approaching writings. You can read the Fathers spiritually (ala the Office of Readings), historically, theologically, thematically, etc. If you know a lot about them, you can definitely find ways to teach them, but you'll probably have to narrow your pedagogy to suit different audiences. A group of ladies at a local parish would probably have different interests from someone who watches MOOCs online. But I belong to a local (non-church) group led by someone with a vast background in philosophy (of the mystical sort), so it's definitely possible to find people locally and be a leader of a local study group, maybe even train others to carry on the study groups.

[The camel]

Dionysius the Areopagite is certainly a bit out of the mainstream, though he has been very influential. Do you know the reasonably recent book by Alexander Golitzin 'Mystagogy: A Monastic Reading of Dionysius Areopagita'? I would recommend it.

I would tend, I think, to start with the Apostolic Fathers. Ignatius is fun. Then people like Irenaeus, Cyprian Justin Martyr, Tertullian. Maybe it is just me, but how could people not find these men and their times exciting? If only they knew what they are missing....

[Era Might]

Dionysius the Areopagite is certainly a bit out of the mainstream, though he has been very influential. Do you know the reasonably recent book by Alexander Golitzin 'Mystagogy: A Monastic Reading of Dionysius Areopagita'? I would recommend it.

I would tend, I think, to start with the Apostolic Fathers. Ignatius is fun. Then people like Irenaeus, Cyprian Justin Martyr, Tertullian. Maybe it is just me, but how could people not find these men and their times exciting? If only they knew what they are missing....

​No, thanks, I'll recommend the book to my group as well. I was particularly impressed by the idea of "hierarchy" (which he apparently invented, and has nothing to do with our petty ideas of hierarchy in social life).

[The camel]

He (Golitzin) is a professor at Marquette, a Russian prince and an Orthodox bishop, which is a pretty fun combination, no?

That whole question of the influence of neo Platonic thought, especially in its more 'esoteric' forms, is very interesting, but somewhat outside my field.

[superblue]

Learning something new all the time which is great, I never know of the term Patristics.

Seems like it is taught at a higher level of education for obvious reasons, which would explain why the average Catholic has not heard of it. People seem to snip at poor catechist from time to time as the cause of such information not reaching the masses, an my answer to that is to keep in mind, that your average diocesan catechist is more than likely a volunteer who has a job and a family and was not formerly trained or asked to take any formal training.

My question to those who are familiar with the topic is how has it helped you on any level.