Role Of Patristics Within Western Catholicism

[Patrick]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894507' date='Jun 17 2009, 03:02 PM']Basically it was saying "if there is a consensus of the Fathers on a way that a passage of Scripture is to be interpreted, then you have to follow that interpretation."[/quote]

Thank you for clearing that up. Sorry I misread it. I'll have to redigest it.

[Patrick]

[quote name='VeniteAdoremus' post='1894162' date='Jun 17 2009, 03:03 AM']The bottom line as it has been taught to me: They were [i]very[/i] often right, but not infallible.

So there are areas in which we nowadays disagree. The same goes for St. Augustine, by the way [/quote]

Alright, I've redigested. Resurrexi's quote is essentially just saying that the Church is the interpretive community and individual interpretation is prone to error, something Orthodox agree with. It didn't answer my question. My question doesn't have to do with individuals vs. the Church, but rather what happens if the Church itself is advocating something that is contrary to the Fathers?

This response comes a bit closer. You're saying that if there is a discrepancy, then modern Roman Catholic official teaching trumps that of the Fathers -- that the modern one is deemed "right".

That's interesting in light of the burning heretics thread, in which the burning of heretics official teaching is now being thought of as culturally out of place.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1895997' date='Jun 19 2009, 01:35 PM']Alright, I've redigested. Resurrexi's quote is essentially just saying that the Church is the interpretive community and individual interpretation is prone to error, something Orthodox agree with. It didn't answer my question. My question doesn't have to do with individuals vs. the Church, but rather what happens if the Church itself is advocating something that is contrary to the Fathers?

This response comes a bit closer. You're saying that if there is a discrepancy, then modern Roman Catholic official teaching trumps that of the Fathers -- that the modern one is deemed "right".

That's interesting in light of the burning heretics thread, in which the burning of heretics official teaching is now being thought of as culturally out of place.[/quote]


Could you give a specific problem? your question is extremely vague.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Don John of Austria

[Patrick]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1896269' date='Jun 19 2009, 07:09 PM']Could you give a specific problem? your question is extremely vague.[/quote]

Good point. My question arose out of the context of the debates on this forum. Where did those go...?

In The Creed thread:
[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1889165' date='Jun 12 2009, 01:53 PM']On a side note, in the Catholic Church, the Latin version of the Creed has the same authority as the Greek since the Fathers of later ecumenical councils (e.g. Trent) made the profession of the faith using the Latin version.[/quote]

This seems an example of something that has good patristic witness, but yet gets trumped by later developments, in this case the Council of Trent.

Also, in the Melkites thread, Apotheoun said:
[quote]The essence / energy (dynamis) distinction is found in the writings of St. Clement of Alexandria, and in the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers, and of St. Maximos the Confessor, and of St. John Damascene, to name only a few. It is a time honored theological truth.[/quote]

But the eventual argument against the essence / energies distinction seems to be simply that it's not the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, in that threa d and elsewhere on this topic. Though I must admit there was a reference to extended reading that I missed the first time around (Thomas Aquinas' Summa, and Vatican I decrees)

It is natural that the ones I notice will also be points of theological contention between Catholics and Orthodox, but that's not my point in bringing up this thread. I was just rather put out by the flatness of the authoritative argument (c'mon -- isn't there a reason the authoritative Church thinks that one thing is right over another??), especially when it left me with the impression that authority was the only deciding factor on the matter.

I didn't want to assume that conclusion, though, so I started this thread.

There might be a couple other representative places I could find, but it was difficult sifting through to find the ones above. Does what I've given give you a sense for where my confusion and frustration is coming from?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1896435' date='Jun 20 2009, 02:57 AM']Good point. My question arose out of the context of the debates on this forum. Where did those go...?

In The Creed thread:


This seems an example of something that has good patristic witness, but yet gets trumped by later developments, in this case the Council of Trent.[/quote]

As a Catholic, I don't believe that the Church suddenly stopped holding ecumenical councils after the first millennium. I hold the dogmas defined by Trent to be just as dogmatic as those defined as Nicaea. As Trent used the Latin translation of the Creed in the same way that the Fathers of Nicaea used the Greek translation, I hold the Latin version to be equally as authoritative.

[Patrick]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1896453' date='Jun 20 2009, 04:51 AM']As a Catholic, I don't believe that the Church suddenly stopped holding ecumenical councils after the first millennium. I hold the dogmas defined by Trent to be just as dogmatic as those defined as Nicaea. As Trent used the Latin translation of the Creed in the same way that the Fathers of Nicaea used the Greek translation, I hold the Latin version to be equally as authoritative.[/quote]

Yes, but as Orthodox, I'm used to the idea that the witness of the Fathers is not at odds with the Councils, the Councils merely expressing the faith of the Fathers, rather than being at odds with them. Perhaps there are key facts Orthodox have a blindness to. If so, I'd like to be made aware of them.

But back to the original point and frustration, the only way I can know if a particular patristic argument will hold any weight is to know the entire set of "trumpers" and know that it has not yet been trumped, right? There's nothing inherent in the particular patristic argument that would make it untrumpable? And what things are trumpers? Councils, obviously. But all councils, or only certain ones? Ex cathedra pronouncements? Any document published from Rome?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1896700' date='Jun 20 2009, 12:38 PM']Yes, but as Orthodox, I'm used to the idea that the witness of the Fathers is not at odds with the Councils, the Councils merely expressing the faith of the Fathers, rather than being at odds with them. Perhaps there are key facts Orthodox have a blindness to. If so, I'd like to be made aware of them.

But back to the original point and frustration, the only way I can know if a particular patristic argument will hold any weight is to know the entire set of "trumpers" and know that it has not yet been trumped, right? There's nothing inherent in the particular patristic argument that would make it untrumpable? And what things are trumpers? Councils, obviously. But all councils, or only certain ones? Ex cathedra pronouncements? Any document published from Rome?[/quote]

As a Catholic, I do not believe that any dogma contradicts a consensus of the Fathers on a matter. I believe that the Ecumenical Councils of the Church do, in fact, express the truths revealed by God to the Apostles.

If you read the [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM"]CDF document[/url] on the profession of faith, it clearly lays out what Catholics have to believe.

[Patrick]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1896708' date='Jun 20 2009, 10:59 AM']If you read the [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM"]CDF document[/url] on the profession of faith, it clearly lays out what Catholics have to believe.[/quote]

I have been, but sometimes matters are not so clear as to be able to rely upon a single document.