Father Patrick made some remarks in his sermon today, reflecting on the Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea, that I want to wrap some of my own thoughts around. I echo some of his thoughts, but my comments should only be construed as my responsibility, and not in any way attributable to him (especially if I in any way err from the Faith of the Church).
Two characteristics in particular were noted about the Nicene Fathers: that they were preoccupied with the past and with precision, and that they were unflinchingly critical of other Christian groups when those groups in any way diverged from the Gospel which once for all had been delivered to the saints.
Needless to say, neither of these characteristics are touted in our own day. Indeed, they are disparaged, to the point of being labelled as distinctly un-Christian.
The Nicene Fathers were acutely aware of the historic deposit of the faith. They were quintessentially concerned to continue in the Apostle's teaching. So much so that though Arius' interpretation purported to be more faithful to Scripture, the Nicene Fathers emphasized the apostolic teaching regarding the Person of Christ. (The Arians, of course, also claimed apostolic precedent, but it is interesting to note the dynamic: the heretics claimed the most literal, authentic biblical interpretation. The orthodox claimed fidelity to the Tradition.)
However, modern day U. S. Christianity is particularly a-historical, even anti-historical--though this antagonism to history is thankfully changing. Protestants have always been interested in the proper interpretation of Scripture, but severed from the historic Faith of the Church, all such interpretations end up being little more than the justifications of their proponents. Or, to state it more bluntly, all heresies begin with an interpretation of Scripture that, though purporting to be more faithful to the Gospel, is divorced from the Church's Tradition, and ultimately leads one astray.
Though U. S. Christians are far from agreement on whether some things are or are not heresy, we can note two difficult cases in point: the ordination of women to Eucharistic ministry and the legitimation of homosexual behavior and same-sex marriages. Note the dynamic here for the proponents of each matter: what is most important is a new interpretation, purportedly more faithful to the Scriptures, yet in opposition to the historic Faith and practice of the Church, which are dubbed "patriarchal" and "oppressive."
Furthermore, modern church groups have little respect for clarity of thought and doctrine. Whereas the Nicene Fathers quibbled over a single iota (homoousias vs. homoiousias), we in modern U. S. Christianity are far more generous. We hesitate to label anything a heresy, lest we elevate the "lifeless letter" over the "living spirit." And after all, isn't love more important? Who needs all this quibbling over jots and tittles? We don't want "dead doctrine." We want living fellowship. But it's only through dogma that we can have fellowship. For fellowship only comes through the reality that the dogma points us to. If we believe a different dogma, we are oriented toward different realities, and have no koinonia.
But the Nicene Fathers knew that a single iota would spell the undoing of the Gospel of Christ. They knew that quibbling over an iota was a matter of life and death; our eternal salvation depended on getting it right. Words do signify reality, and the realities indicated by an iota or its absence made the difference between still being lost in sin, or being delivered from death.
But perhaps the most difficult characteristic of the Nicene Fathers--at least for us--was their willingness to stand up and say that certain of those who called themselves Christians weren't, because the "gospel" (so-called) that they preached did not lead to Christ and communion with Him, but severed one from Christ and led to death and damnation.
The list is not a short one. Think of the fourth and fifth century Fathers in general. St. Athanasius took on the Arians. St. Basil took on the Sabellians. St. Gregory of Nyssa took on the Eunomians. St. Gregory the Theologian condemned the Apollonarians. St. Augustine chastised the Donatists. St. Epiphanius took on everybody.
And lest we think this is a later aberration, we need only to go back to St. Paul himself and the Galatian letter (the Judaizers) and St. John and his first Epistle (those who denied the Incarnation). Nicene Christianity, indeed, biblical and apostolic Christianity, did not hesitate to say of fellow Christians: "You're teaching heresy." Eternal destinies were at stake. Ultimate life and death issues were in the balance.
But us? We're too nice. We'd rather not risk offense--at the expense of the damnation of another's soul, of course.
Father Patrick had an important question. In examining these characteristics, we modern day Christians in the U. S. flinch. We find these traits uncomfortable, and even unworthy of emulation. But we should ask ourselves not, "Are the Fathers part of our church?" but rather, "Are we part of their Church?" Perhaps if we do not exhibit the same character traits as the Nicene Fathers we may well one day answer the question in the negative.
Posted by Clifton at May 23, 2004 05:26 PM | TrackBackAll well and good. You know I agree with you on this... but *how*?
Even Ft P works at Touchstone and lends his name to "mere Christianity" as if such a thing could be.
I am totally at a loss for how to deal with those who claim the name Christian yet teach something different about the Church, the Trinity, the Bible, the Mysteries, Jesus, Sexual Morality, the Saints, the Holy Icons... argh. The List goes on. Yet when NPR wants to talk to a "Christian" they'll get one of those people rather than a Christian.
So... What do we do?
The Next Time NPR interviews Elain Pagels or Billy Graham, should I write in an say, "That's not a Christian!" And explain just how he or she is not?
Or what?
Posted by: Huw Raphael at May 24, 2004 08:49 AMHuw:
Yes. And there are some Orthodox (mostly of the "stricter" sort) who find his work with Protestants (and the GOA, even) scandalous.
I think if you read Fr. Patrick's articles, and definitely if you hear him preach (which you can at the church website, click on "Homilies"), you will find that he doesn't hold back from stating the unvarnished truth.
I think, too, the "critical" aspect of Orthodoxy needs to be held in tension with the "agnostic" aspect. That is to say, if we really mean it when we say that we don't know where the Church is not, we can allow that God is doing what he will with those outside the Church, while at the same time criticizing the aspects of their doctrine(s) that is(are) false and heretical.
Pehaps not much of a how-to, in answer to your question, but more of a mindset.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at May 24, 2004 09:16 AMHuw, how you managed to put these two into the same category I can only guess at, but will not. “Elain Pagels and Billy Graham”
What strikes me about the original post is that I followed it hoping to find something
“preoccupied with the past and with precision”
but, unfortunatley it seems that the divisiveness IS the history even within the limited scope of history in your post.
For instance reading this it seems well within the scope of anyone having recieved the Gospel that they might undertake a study of scipture and find that his brothers are in error on what he feels to be significant points and then write a diatribe against them. This is the way of self glorification.
I think that this was not the point you hoped to make?
I agree that iotas are inportant, but you attempt a metpahor, then back it up with a latine caomparison of words with no definition of them. This makes for a debate and not a discussion.
And compared to the language of the Christ, most of the academic arguments beyond the texts of the Church fathers whiuch are text beyond those of the scriptures seem concerned even with every jot and tittle: the stroke is the jot of the "i" (jot, from the Greek
iota) and the dot above it is the tittle (from Latin, titulus).
"That is to say, if we really mean it when we say that we don't know where the Church is not, we can allow that God is doing what he will with those outside the Church, while at the same time criticizing the aspects of their doctrine(s) that is(are) false and heretical."
This IS good! Move away from argumentation and look at what those doctrines really are. As I said I am trying to find out, and it is less easy than one would desire, and yet the answers and the truth are simple. take a look at my post There is a narrow path... . The closer we can approach honest discussion and being led by the Spirit without humann pride and postering, and allowing for the misunderstanding and inacurateness of human language and cultural bias, then we'll find that Fruit of the Spirit will blossoming forth.
This is why I see a hug difference Huw between Elaine and Rev. Graham. Elaine motivated by academnic pride is presenting errant history, poor academia, faulty research, and possibly deliberate lies in an effort to lead people from anything resembling the Church. Rev. Billy Graham living a saintly life is by contrast presenting the Gospel, and although his semantics and cultural (Russian or Eastern Orthodox styles of worship are much differnet than this) bent may rile our hackles, the truth of his message my be much closer to the Truth as God gave it, and as we believe than we can know. I would not profess to judge.
But I will strive to discern where and what the Lord is teaching me trhough his Spirit.
Pray for me as I struggle always to ascertain God’s truth in every day.
Posted by: David at May 24, 2004 01:55 PMDavid:
I have to confess a little confusion at your point. I don't mean that as a criticism but as a statement of my own lack of understanding what you've written.
What I think you are saying is this:
The preoccupation of the Fathers with connection to the Apostles and the correct expression of Christian dogma is divisive, and non-Christian (or at least less than Christian).
I base this on the following that you have said:
Move away from argumentation and look at what those doctrines really are. As I said I am trying to find out, and it is less easy than one would desire, and yet the answers and the truth are simple. take a look at my post There is a narrow path... . The closer we can approach honest discussion and being led by the Spirit without humann pride and postering, and allowing for the misunderstanding and inacurateness of human language and cultural bias, then we'll find that Fruit of the Spirit will blossoming forth.
I agree that we do often--too often!--fall into the trap of pride and judgmentalism when we critique what we take to be the errors of others. And given the dynamic you've listed--each individual being led by the Spirit to discern what the Scriptures say--it's almost a given that that is what will happen. "The Bible says this!" "No! The Bible says this!"
But the point of my post, albeit perhaps not expressed very well, is that the Nicene Fathers did not undertake to discern the Truth through the dynamic you mention. Indeed, this was precisely Arius' error. The Nicene Fathers very conscientiously were concerned to maintain that which had been taught by the Apostles and held by the faithful since the first century.
I would argue that the dynamic of individual, Spirit-led interpretation--even if attempted in a spirit of humility and love--is impossible, because the Spirit is guaranteed to lead the Church into all truth, not specific individuals.
You seem also to take exception to my instancing of the homoousias controversy. You refer to it as a metaphor, and object that I use "latin" terms without definition.
I admit to using some technical language without explanation. This is a fault of mine, and one I should more conscientiously correct.
But the terms are not unimportant. And while no human language is capable of capturing the full meaning of the reality about God it attempts to express, I would submit that homoousias (of the same essence) and homoiousias (of a similar essence) are not merely metaphors, but do, albeit imperfectly, refer to an actual reality. That is to say, either Christ is indeed, truly of one essence with God (homoousias) or he is only of a like essence with God, and not the same (homoiousias). That is a very significant difference in meaning. And since each refers to an absolutely different reality, it has real impact on the Gospel.
The Nicene Fathers knew that, and knew that fighting vigorously for the proper word (homoousias) was essential. Otherwise, we would be preaching a different Gospel.
I've said a lot based on my understanding of what you've posted. But if I've misunderstood you, please correct me.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at May 24, 2004 02:32 PMSimply put, Dr Graham and Dr Pagels are about equidistant away from the Church's teachings, albeit in different directions and on different doctrines. Yet both allow personal experience and knowledge (gnosis) to trump the Revelation of the Faith as delivered to the Saints. In different ways they are both Gnostics.
But, the Church is the pillar adn ground of the truth, it is not human pride to say so. It is humility, for even in saying it I know how far away from that truth I live my daily life. It is, however, human pride to side step that fact in order to "play well together".
Posted by: Huw Raphael at May 24, 2004 03:52 PMYeah! Thank you Clifton!
the homoousias controversy
This darned library system!
Not take exception, it’s just that the language has excluded me. I have no idea what either word means. I can see the controversy that might be entailed even if it were merely a philisophical debate. You should hear two Frenchmen discussing the correct word and verb conjugation. So getting the i out of place in whatever language that is I’m sure casued confussion. (I’m making light of it as a speloling mistake, as that is all I am equipped to do.)
However, put into my language I understand. Problem solved. Christ is God! He is not similar to! He is and ever shall be, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. Hallelejah!!!!!
Rereading your paragraph now I ilke it. But if when those words, are unknown to me I have to teat it almost as a metaphor, I can get candence, and color, but not the intended meaning. Kind of how I was reduced to reading much of Ezra Pound in college. Less a critiscim of you, but of mine own facility with languages at this point. I am rectifying this for the next generation of my immediate family. They are already better equipped.
And apologies to Huw once again. I do not know where Billy Graham and the OC differ interms of belief, but as I am not a follower of teh reverrend but merely and occasional observer I speak of what I do not know. I've never heard him on NPR, though. I was impressed with his humility and speech in the national Cathedral following 911. And I have an old copy of Day by Day, from 1976, that used to be my Grandfathers. Daddy Big probably heard Billy speak at one time or another.
Elaine, I’ve seen enough of, in the little bit I’ve heard to fear for her students.
Back to Clifton: Don’t worry about the confusion. It’s in my writing and inside my head is worse — so let me try and tighten it up a bit.
No problem with the Fathers connecting with the apostles in their teaching. All of the best of what I’ve been able to learn has come from those who go back to the original languages, and the church fathers and theology.
I’ll have to read up on Arius, but from what I skimmed recently he seemed out there a bit. And I’m not sure if Erasumus came after the schism or before?
I have problems with Ignatious and how anxious he was to face death without hope of prolonging his ministry. Compared with Paul, there is a noticeable difference in tone. I will try to understand it in terms of the condemnation he felt he was under. And as for the bit about the Pheonix? Well? I can’t imagine that’s become doctrine, but tell me now won’t you? Artistically for the purpose of typifying our life in Christ it is of course a classic.
Look how easy I get sidetracked...
So, because it wasn’t Barnabas, but Justin Martyr who wrote about the Eucharist, does anyone want to help me out?
I’ve read it. And I know the types from the Old testament to the statements of Christ. And I know where the RC is on this and I don’t stand alongside of them. That was revealed to me last night when I finally found the language they use, and what they call it.
But, Justin Martry uses the word transmutation, which is metalurgical.
Actually here he is from his first apology:
“And this food is called among us Eu0xaristi/a143 [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.144 For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me,145 this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.”
1. “having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation”
Notice in this phrase he is saying that Christ (the Word of God) was made flesh and blood by the Word of God.
I’ll not venture there, other than to say this could be contrued by some to mean NOT by the Holy Spirit. I can eitehr give JM some leeway in his theology (Peter, and James also made mistakes, who hasn’t) for the moment, assume that it’s an iota out of place, or let it be a mystery, becausue I think JM and I both agree that on other aspects of the faith.
2. “so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
Of note: “from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished”
He is not talking about the wine and bread changing in transmutation, he is talking about our bodies “our blood and flesh” being nourished. And they are nourished “by transumtation” whcih is a pretty good first or second centruy explantation for the process of nourishment.
Transmutation is a metalurgical process by which one substance becomes another. From dust we came to dust we’ll go.
I am not trying to take any mystery out of this. communion in any church is a mystery and although I have never experienced it in the OC, I’ve read that it is extremely beautiful.
I do not believe that it is only an intellectual exercise, I know that some do, and that is their business. God has commanded us to do this thing, and I will leave the mystery in his hands.
It is clear to me that if I do not partake of it I have no part with him. But, this is part of why I am posting.
Commmanded to have fellowship woth believers, and to take communion with them, how does one find them and knwo that they are believers...
Prayer, searching God’s word, reading the fathers, trying to cipher out centuries old “Christian family” arguments in latin and greek that go back centuries...
Thank you very much Clifton.
Pointers on the Eucharist search would be much appreciated. I’m sure that others have gone before me in searching these questions out from amidst the CFs.
Your servant and brother in Chirst.
Posted by: David at May 25, 2004 08:54 PMDavid:
I'm not sure what you mean by "pointers on the Eucharist search". On the one hand, do you mean some more teaching from the early Church on what the Lord's Supper was and meant? If so, I've done a paper on it which you can read here: The Reality of the Lord's Supper.
However, if you meant, where can you find a Church which believes, lives and offers the reality of the Eucharistic Mystery, the short answer is: The Orthodox Church. But I'm sure I would need to unpack that a bit more for you.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at May 25, 2004 09:12 PM“That is to say, if we really mean it when we say that we don't know where the Church is not, we can allow that God is doing what he will with those outside the Church, while at the same time criticizing the aspects of their doctrine(s) that is(are) false and heretical.”
That is an important statement. And well put.
Clifton I just found your essay on the eucharist.... Thanks to God, no thanks to Google. I’ll will return.
Posted by: David at May 26, 2004 12:50 AM