01 March 2007

On Patristic Picking and Choosing

Sometimes the observation is made that when it comes to their use of the Fathers, Lutherans do some picking and choosing. Well, of course, the same is true for everyone in some sense. Quote to your Roman or Orthodox apologist a passage from the Fathers that says something they disagree with, and they'll tell you that they don't accept everything a Father said. Well, duh. Neither do the Lutherans.

But what is very interesting is the argument Chemnitz makes in the Examen regarding such picking and choosing. He cites a patristic source to justify it - a passage from St. Augustine. The context is that his opponents were citing St. Cyrian's position on the lapsed, something which St. Augustine happened to disagree with because he considered it to be contrary to the witness of the Sacred Scriptures. I find it fascinating how St. Augustine answered them. Does it sound at all familiar?

"I am not bound by the authority of this epistle for I do not hold the writings of Cyprian as canonical, but I consider them according to the canonical, and I accept whatever in them agrees with the authority of the divine Scriptures with his approval, but what does not agree I reject with his permission." (Contra Cresconium, Book 2, Chapter 32, cited in Examen I, p. 174)

Here is a father - indeed THE father of the Western Church - laying down a principle for the reading of the Fathers: that which in them agrees with the canonical Scriptures we accept with their approval; that which disagrees with the canonical Scriptures we reject with their permission. Which is a very beautiful way of saying that no Father ever wanted to be found teaching that which was in conflict with the Sacred Scriptures, and they knew they were not infallible, as the Sacred Scriptures are. Thus, I would submit, that St. Augustine has here very helpfully pointed out the way to read the Fathers with profit and blessing.

I know perfectly well the rebuttal will be that one is then substituting one's own read of the Sacred Scriptures for that of the Fathers and putting one's self above those who were both holier and wiser. That they were holier and wiser there is no dispute. But unlike those who insist that the meaning of the Scriptures can only be understood within their particular jurisdiction as Church, we joyfully confess that the Scriptures themselves can function as umpire (as St. Gregory of Nyssa taught) and that even a catechumen can understand them well enough to judge by them whether his teacher is handing him the truth of God or not (as St. Cyril of Jerusalem implied in his Catechesis) and that since they are a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, inspired by the Holy Spirit, we are not reposing trust in "our interpretation" but in the Spirit's own revealed truth - which always points us to the Lamb of God, slaughtered for the sins of the world, raised again for our justification, that we might live in Him, forgiven, redeemed, and restored.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

But you've constructed your argument by the very method in question: picking and choosing your quotes. St. Augustine also wrote:

"For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." — St. Augustine

love in Christ,
Anastasia

William Weedon said...

Now, Anastasia, the quote you provide does NOT find the great saint addressing the question of how to understand the Fathers. The quote I supplied from him, however, is specifically his address to the question of how to read the Fathers.

Anonymous said...

.

Oh, horsefeathers, William. If St. Augustine doesn't accept even the Gospel --the Gospel!-- except in accordance with the Church, how can we imagine he will read the Fathers except in accordance with the Church?

love in Christ,
Anastasia

DRB said...

I suppose there were also those who would not have believed in the Lamb of God had they not had the witness of John the Baptist. It does not follow that Jesus spoke so unclearly that they had to go ask John what Jesus really meant.

Anonymous said...

That's a wonderful quotation from Augustine. This we know: the Church Fathers were fallible, sinful humans like you and me. What are we to make of their writings when they contradict? Should we disregard some fathers because some of what they say disagrees with others fathers?

May it never be! Instead, may the arbiter of arbiters decide: the Holy Spirit through the testimony of the Scripture. This is scary for some, because it then makes what the fathers wrote an open season for criticism when they weaken or go against the Scriptural message.

Nonetheless, American Christainity would do well to read the Fathers instead of the heterodox pabulum that is considered Christian reading these days. A good dose of the Fathers would whack the American Protestants in their backsides like they (and we!) need and deserve.

But the Fathers were not infallible. And their confession of the truth falters at times--in that, it is not a confession because it is not homologeo, 'same-saying' what the Scriptures say.

May we read the fathers. May we respect them. May their writings help inform and shape us as better readers of the Scriptures. But may their words never stand as equal to the Scriptures!

Rich F.

123 said...

The other issue is that what a catechumen can easily see in the Scriptures is not necessarily something that even the learned of our time is able to see. Sts Augustine and Cyril, if they actually used the Scriptures in the way you are attributing to them, saw all sort of un-Lutheran things in those Scriptures. To them the invocation of the saints, the sacramentality of chrismation, the 'essential' differentiation between episkopos, presbyter and deacon, etc. are all to be found "with the authority of the divine Scriptures".

You can't appeal to their method without accepting the results they gained from that method.

Anonymous said...

Christopher,

You're right, of course, in what you say; but now we're going to begin revisiting the profitless "dialogue" of the L-O list.

The unworthy priest,

Fr. Gregory Hogg

William Weedon said...

More from St. Augustine to consider:

From Letter 82 (to Jerome):

For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error. Far be such arrogance from that humble piety and just estimate of yourself which I know you to have, and without which assuredly you would not have said, "Would that I could receive your embrace, and that by converse we might aid each other in learning!"

Christopher and Fr. Gregory,

Your approach simply guts the whole point that St. Augustine or St. Cyril makes.

123 said...

It guts what you understand their point to be.

My point is that while holding to the methodology that you quote and assume that they actually held, they saw in the canonical Scriptures all sorts of practices that you and the BofC disavow. If they are wrong on so much of what they practiced, and were responsible for teaching and upholding the same as monarchical bishops in their churches, then their authority is worthless and you shouldn't bother quoting them because they did not practice what you saw the preached.

At what point do these authorities undermine their own reliability by their actions and everything else they wrote? When are they - as real men and not as a religious "Bartlet's Quotations" - more than simply window-dressing to your arguments drawn from elsewhere?

William Weedon said...

Dear Christopher,

St. Augustine himself has delimited when they are useful and when they are not. For example, you discard St. Jerome's statements about the episcopacy as not useful. You discard them because they disagree with what you believe the Church teaches. We retain them because they simply state what the Scriptures teach. I could ask you: Why do you commemorate St. Jerome and not believe what he teaches? How can you regard St. Augustine as a Saint and disavow his doctirne of the Trinity? Etc. But the point is that EVERYONE recognizes that there is in the Fathers a mixed bag of sorts, and so the fathers themselves!

Thus, back to another wisdom of Chemnitz,
"At times they set forth their private speculations and devotions, that at times they describe a custom of some particular church, at times, however, explain public doctrines of the entire catholic church. And between these there is certainly a great difference."

123 said...

My point is more limited; I am not arguing about the differences between East and West or the place of conciliarity and universality in understanding the 'consensus patrum'.

You list two particular doctrines that these saints do not hold, but what of all the other non-Lutheran doctrines and practices they do hold. They did not hold these two doctrines because they saw them as inconsistent with the Scriptures, but they saw so much else as consistent with the Scriptures. How can this be? I would put forward that this should be a red flag that you are not understanding these Fathers and simply proof-texting in support of your own opinion, which is not consistent with the positions resulting from the methodology of these saints - which, to me, shows that you do not in fact share the same methodology as these men.

Anonymous said...

I have to admit that some of this discussion and the quotes from the church fathers are sometimes a bit beyond me, but I like the mental picture of scripture as umpire.

It seems to me that not ignoring what they have to say, but hearing it through the filter of scripture is no different than what we do every Sunday morning. This is what scripture commands us sheep to do while our shepherds are in the pulpit. It seems to me that that command would also be applicable to us when we are listening to old, dead shepherds as well.

Jeff

William Weedon said...

Dear Christopher,

We could go back and forth - no, we HAVE gone back and forth on this till the cows come home. : )

I would merely commend to any and all of the participants in this discussion to actually spend time reading the Fathers, and reading them especially as they preach on the Scriptures - which is where real theology takes place! And then let the reader judge.

Of course we need to beware of bringing our own assumptions to the Fathers - and that is as true for the Orthodox as for the Lutherans. But remembering the words of Augustine can guide the way to the most profitable reading of the Fathers - for they wish to say and teaching nothing contrary to the Sacred Scriptures.

Jeff,

Yes, it is a DELIGHTFUL image. It shows the Scriptures not as this inert thing, but as the active, living and powerful Words of God!

Anonymous said...

I'm coming in late, I know, but I can't help but feel that this entire discussion is somewhat misguided.

Let's look at what Augustine says again. "I am not bound by the authority of this [Cyprian's] epistle for I do not hold the writings of Cyprian as canonical." In some respects, this seems rather uninteresting to me. Neither the Lutherans nor the Orthodox believe themselves to be "bound by the authority" of Cyprian's epistles, or of the writings of any other Father. John Chrysostom, for example, suggests that the Blessed Virgin sinned during her lifetime, whereas John of Damascus (among others) seems to speak as though she did not. Of course neither is authoritative, and neither binds us. Nor do any Lutherans or Orthodox hold that the writings of Cyprian or any other Father are canonical.

"I consider them according to the canonical, and I accept whatever in them agrees with the authority of the divine Scriptures with his approval, but what does not agree I reject with his permission." (Incidentally, does "his" refer to Cyprian here?) What Orthodox or Lutheran believer would not agree? Even the Orthodox steadfastly confess, so far as I know, that Scripture is the highest authority, the crown jewel (so to speak) of what they call Tradition. Certainly, then, any of the writings of the Fathers ought to be judged according to it, and rejected where they contradict Scripture. I would be quite shocked to find an Orthodox believer *denying* that we should reject whatever does not agree with Scripture in the Fathers.

But here we have dealt with the whole quote, and yet no cause for disagreement on either side has arisen! And what of the quote from the Letter to Jerome? Augustine says that only the canonical books of Scripture are such that their authors were free from error. "As to all other writings," this is not so. But again, I would like to know of any Lutherans or Orthodox who say that there are any other writings or authors who are free from error; I don't know of any. I think it's fairly well known that no one confesses any of the Fathers or their writings to be infallible or inerrant. (Two additional points are of interest here in this latter quote for Augustine. First, he accepts the writings of the Fathers because "they have succeeded in convincing [his] judgment of [their] truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, *or* by arguments addressed to [his] reason" (emphasis added). Also, when Augustine finds something in Scripture that he thinks is mistaken, two of his three options are to think that the manuscript must be faulty, or that the translator erred! I'll just mention these things; I won't comment on them.)

Augustine makes himself clear: "I do not need to say that I do not suppose you [Jerome] to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doub that they are free from error." No, of course he doesn't need to say that. But neither need any Orthodox (or Lutheran) believer, with respect to himself or with respect to any other Father. Again, where is the disagreement with the straightforward understanding of what Augustine is saying?

There may be an outcry in response to this: "Surely there is a difference! The Orthodox will not allow Scripture to speak for itself but will say that it must be interpreted by an authoritative interpreter!" Well, yes, that may be a difference (though I am genuinely not sure about that). But this claim that Scripture has an authoritative interpreter in the Church is not a claim that contradicts anything said by Augustine here. And I won't get into apologetics, but we (I assume) all know about Athanasius speaking of the "ecclesial [or ecclesiastical, i.e., churchly] sense" of the words of Scripture. And, incidentally, it's not so clear that the Orthodox are the only ones saying this; see, for example, (Calvinist) Keith Mathison's, "The Shape of Sola Scriptura," which I believe makes the general claim that the early Church had a "rule of faith" which had generally the same content as Scripture and served to guarantee its correct interpretation; any interpretation of Scripture which contradicted this rule of faith was ipso facto subject to doubt and rejection. The Orthodox, so far as I understand it, need not say much more (if any more) than that. Scripture indeed can be the final and ultimate authority for them, the only authoritative source for doctrine, and so on;* it is just that they know (or so they would claim) the proper interpretation of this source, and have those (the bishops, if we're speaking Orthodox-ese) whose task it is to guard and apply this interpretation and so to use the Scripture as a rule for doctrine (just as a judge applies the law to specific cases, for example), and they know (or so they would claim) that any interpretation which contradicts the received interpretation is ipso facto a contradiction of Scripture. It is precisely *because* it is a contradiction of Scripture that such an interpretation is rejected! So it is still the case, even on this view, that any doctrine which contradicts Scripture is unallowable. It is still the case that Scripture is the ultimate authority, and the only authority free from error, and so on. They just claim to have a "rule" which embodies the correct interpretation of Scripture and so can be used just as well to judge doctrine (because, after all, what it teaches is what Scripture teaches). It is hard to see that this is extremely distant (again, if distant at all) from the Lutheran's view of the Book of Concord.

* I have placed this asterisk in the text because it is likely here that the claims are most open to dispute. For some will say: What about the traditions associated with the Dormition of Mary (particularly the part about her being assumed into heaven three days after her death)? Isn't that viewed by the Orthodox as dogma? But it doesn't seem to come from Scripture. What about the view that Mary lived a sinless life (although subject to original sin)? Isn't that now assigned dogmatic status? But that doesn't seem to come from Scripture either. I grant these points, but might contend (on behalf of the Orthodox) that, despite what might be prevailing views within the Orthodox Church, such things are not binding dogmata and may be dissented from by the faithful. They have certainly never been defined by Ecumenical Councils; and, in that vein, it is interesting to note that all such councils have historically been associated with *thoroughly* Scriptural dogmata, i.e., with Trinitarian and Christological dogmata (yes, even the 7th Council; the disputes surrounding iconography were, though it is perhaps hard for some of us to understand now, centered fundamentally around Christology (this is why, or so it seems to me, the reception of icons back into the Church is so celebrated by the Orthodox; cf. the Sunday of Orthodoxy)).

Regarding all of this, those of you who are Lutheran or Orthodox are more than welcome to correct me regarding your respective traditions. :)

Best,
Jason

William Weedon said...

Jason,

Very well said. I agree with your post in almost every particular. The initial post, though, was noting that St. Augustine's method IS the method which everyone employs whether admitted or not. No Lutheran would question the existence of the regula fidei as precisely the key to the correct interpretation of the Scriptures - so that we end up with the picture of the great King and not of the fox (Ireaneus) by arranging the pieces of the mosaic correctly.

That the Orthodox do hold to that which Lutherans feel cannot be grounded in the Scriptures is a fact. But, as you most charitably imply it, *the Orthodox believe that those teachings are grounded in the Scriptures, otherwise they would not believe them.*

But it would be nice then to be done with the silliness of saying: "But you're picking and choosing" and recognize that all do that - and with the holy Fathers permission - for they were not infallible.

Anonymous said...

Pastor Weedon,

Thanks for the reply (and a "good call" to you on the mention of Irenaeus' mosaic). Let me say that I agree with you in general about the "silliness," with one caveat (with which I'm sure you'll also agree): sometimes it does identify a real flaw in the use of the Fathers, that flaw being "proof-texting." But, even so, surely the charge of "picking and choosing" is thrown around quite a bit too much, and usually without any real substantiation. I suspect that I'm as much against that as you are.

Best,
Jason