Order of Reading the Holy Fathers Orthodox
I mentioned in a comment to a recent mail that more people talk virtually the Fathers of the Church than actually read them. I too noted that skillful translations are difficult to find. I wanted to offer some thoughts on reading the Fathers likewise every bit some suggestions on how to brainstorm that important task.
Outset, y'all should understand that you will never read all the Fathers, or empathize all that they write.
Second, the Fathers should non exist read as though they were Scripture, nor should we read them equally a source of "proof texting" diverse doctrines or understandings.
The "Fathers" is a very large category of writings. They are by no means even in their quality or their importance. They are an integral part of the Tradition and it is within the Tradition that they should be read and understood.
Third, at that place is no shame in reading the Fathers primarily in trusted, secondary sources. The larger context of history and culture does not come attached to the writings of the Fathers, per se. Thus, a vitally of import part of their interpretation is not available to about readers. Even Patristic Scholars (those whose specialty is the writings of the Fathers) will not be equally comfortable or competent in every flow of Patristic history. In Orthodoxy, that period can be said to have lasted upward until at least the 14th century, and some would say that nosotros have never left the flow of the Fathers.
By good secondary sources, I would mean writings on the lives and teachings of the Fathers by very solid, respected Orthodox writers. If an Orthodox author is himself (or herself) surrounded by controversy, then yous would do well to read their works with a grain of table salt, or not at all. At that place is more than than enough good textile to be read without indulging ourselves in controversial figures.
Finally (at to the lowest degree of these preliminary suggestions) I would suggest that the most important Patristic legacy is the liturgical wealth of the Church building. Read the services and think about what they say. When something raises a question that seems important, pursue the question.
Now for some suggestions for reading:
The Apostolic Fathers(those in the first generation immediately after the Apostles) are very accessible and easy to read. Generally, their works sound much like the New Testament itself. The Letters of St. Ignatius, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, and others (you'll by and large find them published in a single volume) are all worth reading.
Who else? St. Athanasius' On the Incarnation of the Give-and-take is of singular importance. I would add to that St. Irenaeus' On the Apostolic Preaching. Both testify to how the early Church building thought on many meaning questions.
The later in history (as in the further removed from the New Testament) the more necessary a guide becomes and the importance of skilful secondary works. St. Vladimir'south Seminary Press carries a number of good titles in this area.
But, as noted, without scholarly training, much of the body of Patristic writing, if read without an interpreter, volition either be sick-used or but misunderstood. It is not easy reading.
Another important idea – reading the Church Fathers is something that should be done generally for personal edification and not as a means of gaining expertise, much less authorisation. If they are read with one center on God and the other on your heart, then yous will have done well. But too much knowledge, unsupported by prayer and a grounded ascetical life, is not only unhealthy, it tin become a positive danger to those around you. We have too many cocky-appointed government in the Church already.
One of the most singular bodies of Church writing are the Holy Canons. I cannot call back ever having suggested to anyone that they read the canons and I have yet to run across any good come from such reading past whatever other than those who have the responsibility to apply them (which sometimes means priests, and about especially Bishops). There are once more, any number of self-appointed authorities who read the canons and and then set about attacking the Bishops of the Church or their local parish priest on the grounds that they are not using the canons properly. This is rarely an activity that is inspired by God. Anyone who engages in it should look very carefully at themselves and be sure they are non living in delusion. Who called you lot to be a estimate? The few in the Church who have been called to such positions accept them (I hope) simply with great fearfulness and trembling seeing that they will deport the greatest judgment of all. I rejoice that I am non a Bishop (for many reasons) and find many things near beingness the Rector of a parish absolutely terrifying. An abbot of a famous Orthodox monastery whom I know, said that his greatest fright was whatsoever occasion when he had to give someone an obedience. Those who delight in such authorisation, should again examine themselves for delusion (or allow someone else examine them).
By all means read the Fathers – or at least read those who are familiar with the Fathers and will glean from them their treasures and share them with yous. Beware of those who constantly quote the Fathers on all matters and are full of opinions (which, of course, ways delight read this weblog with a grain of salt as well). Particularly beware of those who quote the Fathers frequently and are constantly critical of other Orthodox. This is rarely a gift sent to us from God.
Nigh of the Church Fathers are saints – they are non writing to u.s.a. from some dead zone. When you read patristic writings (just every bit when you read the New Testament) ask the writer to pray for you and help you in your understanding.
A quick listing (off the elevation of my head) of important Patristic material:
St. Ignatius of Antioch – of import particularly for his understanding of early Church gild and the sacraments.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons – his grasp of the role of Tradition in the Church is seminal. Trying to read through his Against the Heresies is impossible or will at to the lowest degree make your pilus hurt.
St. Athanasius – his De Incarnatione Verbum is among the almost important of all early Church writings. It is basic to our understanding of what salvation ways.
St. Basil the Cracking – On the Holy Spirit is a short, but important piece of work. Secondary writings on his piece of work tin can be extremely helpful.
St. Gregory the Theologian – a friend of St. Basil's. Many of his homilies are at least as skilful as St. John Chrysostom'due south.
St. Gregory of Nyssa – harder to read than his brother, St. Basil. Read him with help if at all.
St. Cyril of Alexandria is worth reading, at least in secondary writings.
St. John Chrysostom – for me his sermons serve as an outstanding commentary on the New Testament. Always a good read.
I will take to add to this list in another post. I would welcome suggestions in the comments on various secondary works on the Fathers some of you may have found helpful.
I volition close with the observation that Orthodox Christians should have some familiarity with some of the Fathers and a deep respect for them all. But our growth in Christ will not come up largely as a event of increased reading but increased prayer, fasting, alms giving, and forgiveness of our enemies. If you would have the "mind of the Fathers," then seek to have the "mind of Christ" as described in Philippians ii:5-11. They are the same matter.
Source: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2007/10/30/reading-the-fathers/
0 Response to "Order of Reading the Holy Fathers Orthodox"
ارسال یک نظر