Role Of Patristics Within Western Catholicism

[Patrick]

I had previously thought that Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholics at least had some shared Saints in there, and that these could be used as authoritative sources respected by both parties. John Chrysostom. Basil the Great (of Cappodocia). And so on. (But not Augustine -- Eastern Orthodox don't give as much weight to Augustine as Westerners do).

And I'm now a bit confused on that, having witnessed patristic arguments hold weight with some people on this forum, but not others, and in some instances, but not others. Do modern Western developments "trump" patristrics, such that I probably can't even use patristics as a common source between us? What is the relationship of modern-day Western Catholics to the ECF (Early Church Fathers)?

[Resurrexi]

EDIT: I really need to find my specs.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Resurrexi

[VeniteAdoremus]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1893422' date='Jun 16 2009, 11:44 PM']I had previously thought that Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholics at least had some shared Saints in there, and that these could be used as authoritative sources respected by both parties. John Chrysostom. Basil the Great (of Cappodocia). And so on. (But not Augustine -- Eastern Orthodox don't give as much weight to Augustine as Westerners do).

And I'm now a bit confused on that, having witnessed patristic arguments hold weight with some people on this forum, but not others, and in some instances, but not others. Do modern Western developments "trump" patristrics, such that I probably can't even use patristics as a common source between us? What is the relationship of modern-day Western Catholics to the ECF (Early Church Fathers)?[/quote]

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

[Resurrexi]

"Praeterea ad coercenda petulantia ingenia decernit, ut nemo, suae prudentiae innixus, in rebus fidei et morum, ad aedificationem doctrinae christianae pertinentium, sacram Scripturam ad suos sensus contorquens, contra eum sensum, quem tenuit et tenet sancta mater Ecclesia, cujus est judicare de vero sensu et interpretatione Scripturarum sanctarum, aut etiam contra unanimem consensum Patrum ipsam Scripturam sacram interpretari audeat, etiamsi hujusmodi interpretationes nullo umquam tempore in lucem edendae forent" (Ecumenical Council of Trent: DS 1507)

"Furthermore, in order to curb impudent clever persons, it [the sacrosanct ecumenical and general Councl of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own judgment in matters of faith and morals which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one, distorting the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers."

[Patrick]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894164' date='Jun 17 2009, 03:34 AM']"Praeterea ad coercenda petulantia ingenia decernit, ut nemo, suae prudentiae innixus, in rebus fidei et morum, ad aedificationem doctrinae christianae pertinentium, sacram Scripturam ad suos sensus contorquens, contra eum sensum, quem tenuit et tenet sancta mater Ecclesia, cujus est judicare de vero sensu et interpretatione Scripturarum sanctarum, aut etiam contra unanimem consensum Patrum ipsam Scripturam sacram interpretari audeat, etiamsi hujusmodi interpretationes nullo umquam tempore in lucem edendae forent" (Ecumenical Council of Trent: DS 1507)

"Furthermore, in order to curb impudent clever persons, it [the sacrosanct ecumenical and general Councl of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own judgment in matters of faith and morals which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one, distorting the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of holy Scriptures, [b]or even contrary to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers[/b]."[/quote]

Um, wow. To say, in effect, "We know better than an entire united consensus of all prior Christians" is ... arrogant, isn't it? I would suppose this also includes the statements by the fathers that what is Christian is that which is held everywhere, by all Christians, throughout time?

Orthodox agree that the Church (leaving aside questions of its boundary for the moment) is the proper interpreter of Scripture -- that any individual's judgment alone is prone to error and self-deception. Including the one man, the pope. I have issue with the bolded part, because it leaves open the possibility to make the Catholic faith into whatever one wishes, if one is in the power to do so.

I need a little clarification. When is it ok to go against the entire consensus of the previous fathers? Who, and under what circumstances? The above quote says that the "holy mother Church" has that authority, but can you be more specific? Are you only talking about when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, for instance? What about Pope Honorius? How could he be denounced a heretic at the Sixth Ecumenical council? Wouldn't that imply that "holy mother Church" is larger at least than the pope?

And to summarize thus far, yes, Catholics feel their tradition can trump the fathers, and I cannot use them as a common witness unless I know the entirety of Catholic tradition and that they have not been thusly trumped [b]so far[/b]. Which is, of course, entirely impractical for many Orthodox, particularly the ones who haven't been Catholic. That's frustrating.

[Patrick]

To clarify, I'm not trying to be antagonistic in starting this thread. I'm trying to find some common ground (if any) on which Orthodox and Roman Catholics can agree upon anything. I think that's a worthy cause.

[VeniteAdoremus]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1894360' date='Jun 17 2009, 08:14 PM']Um, wow. To say, in effect, "We know better than an entire united consensus of all prior Christians" is ... arrogant, isn't it? I would suppose this also includes the statements by the fathers that what is Christian is that which is held everywhere, by all Christians, throughout time?[/quote]

Uhm, I thought it said "don't go against Church teaching or the stuff the Fathers agree upon". So more or less the opposite.

There's only a problem when the Fathers [i]don't[/i] agree.

[Patrick]

[quote name='VeniteAdoremus' post='1894370' date='Jun 17 2009, 11:26 AM']Uhm, I thought it said "don't go against Church teaching or the stuff the Fathers agree upon". So more or less the opposite.

There's only a problem when the Fathers [i]don't[/i] agree.[/quote]

Oh, wait, I might have read that wrong.

[quote]"Furthermore, in order to curb impudent clever persons, it [the sacrosanct ecumenical and general Councl of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own judgment in matters of faith and morals which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one, distorting the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers."[/quote]

The "or even contrary to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers" phrase. To what does it refer? Does it say essentially "the holy mother Church's duty is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of holy Scriptures, even contrary to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers" OR does it say "no one individual shall interpret differently than the holy mother Church or the unanimous consensus of the Fathers"?

I had taken it to mean the former.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894164' date='Jun 17 2009, 06:34 AM']"Furthermore, in order to curb impudent clever persons, it [the sacrosanct ecumenical and general Councl of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own judgment in matters of faith and morals which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one, distorting the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers."[/quote]

Going by the English grammatical structure, this is what it says after you remove the supporting clauses and extra words that serve as clarification for theologions and confusion for laypeople:

"...it [the Council of Trent] decrees that no one ... shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy mother Church ... or even contrary to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers."

Or to really bring it down: "Nobody has the authority to interpret Scripture contrary to the Church or the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers."

Edited June 17, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[StColette]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1894385' date='Jun 17 2009, 01:41 PM']OR does it say "no one individual shall interpret differently than the holy mother Church or the unanimous consensus of the Fathers"?[/quote]

Judging from the sentence structure of the document I would say it's the later of your interpretations. That no one shall interpret differently than the Holy Mother Church or interpret different than the consensus of the Fathers.

When the Church differs from the opinion of the Fathers it is when there is not a clear consensus of the Fathers. I believe a previous poster pointed this out. That it is when there isn't a consensus among the Fathers is when differing opinions between the Fathers and the Church arise.

[Patrick]

[quote name='StColette' post='1894429' date='Jun 17 2009, 12:36 PM']Judging from the sentence structure of the document I would say it's the later of your interpretations. That no one shall interpret differently than the Holy Mother Church or interpret different than the consensus of the Fathers.

When the Church differs from the opinion of the Fathers it is when there is not a clear consensus of the Fathers. I believe a previous poster pointed this out. That it is when there isn't a consensus among the Fathers is when differing opinions between the Fathers and the Church arise.[/quote]

Thank you, that helps.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

There is a current school of the theology in the West called Ressourcement (a french term which means a return to the sources) which attempts to return to an even greater emphasis on the Patristics and Scripture. Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), Karl Rahner SJ, Henry de Lubac, and Hans Urs von Balthasar are all a part of the school of thought and it had a great influence on the documents of the Second Vatican Council and continues to influence the theology of the West and can be seen greatly in Pope Benedict XVI's encyclicals.

[Patrick]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' post='1894453' date='Jun 17 2009, 01:12 PM']There is a current school of the theology in the West called Ressourcement (a french term which means a return to the sources) which attempts to return to an even greater emphasis on the Patristics and Scripture. Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), Karl Rahner SJ, Henry de Lubac, and Hans Urs von Balthasar are all a part of the school of thought and it had a great influence on the documents of the Second Vatican Council and continues to influence the theology of the West and can be seen greatly in Pope Benedict XVI's encyclicals.[/quote]


Thank you, that's very helpful. I'll read up on it a bit. What school of thought was this in reaction against?

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

I am not sure but I think it may have been a response not specifically to scholasticism but to using philosophy overly much in theology and return to the purity of thought and expression as seen in The Fathers and Scripture.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='VeniteAdoremus' post='1894370' date='Jun 17 2009, 01:26 PM']Uhm, I thought it said "don't go against Church teaching or the stuff the Fathers agree upon". So more or less the opposite.

There's only a problem when the Fathers [i]don't[/i] agree.[/quote]

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."

[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.