|
THE FAITH OF OUR FATHERS PAULOS MAR GREGORIOSTHE FAITH OF OUR FATHERS Dr. Paulos Mar Gregorios First
Edition: 1969 Second
Sophia Books Edition: October 1996 First
Web Edition: 2004 June CONTENTS INTRODUCTION CHAPTER
I The Fathers of the Church CHAPTER II The
Apostolic Fathers and Other Pre-Nicene Fathers CHAPTER
III The Golden Age of the Fathers CHAPTER
IV St. Athanasius CHAPTER
V Mar Baselius
of CHAPTER
VI Mar Gregorios
of Nazianzus CHAPTER
VII Mar Gregorios
of Nyssa CHAPTER VIII Mar
Ivanios the Golden - Mouthed CHAPTER
IX Mar Kurilos
Of INTRODUCTION This little pamphlet has but a modest goal. It is intended primarily for University students, especially members of the Mar Gregorios Orthodox Christian Student Movement. Others may benefit from it - given sympathetic understanding. There
is no way of understanding Christianity without understanding the Fathers.
The Bible is essential and primary, but not sufficient by itself. These men
embodied in their lives and teachings elements of the faith - which one
without acquaintance with the authentic tradition cannot easily discern in
the Bible. The
Bible, the Liturgy, the Fathers - these three form a
complex unity. Any of these cannot be understood without some knowledge of
the other two. This
pamphlet is meant only to begin to cultivate a taste for the Fathers.
Students will have to do much more work once their interest has been
quickened. Three things characterized the Fathers - a dedicated life with an intense discipline of prayer, worship and fasting, a singular capacity to combine wide and deep secular knowledge with knowledge of the ways of God and an infinite and active compassion for the poor and the needy and a willingness to serve them. We need the same combination in today's world and Church if mankind is to find its way forward. College students should at least have an opportunity to become exposed to the personality, life and thought of some of these spiritual giants of the past. Several
small pamphlets are to follow, if God wills, this slender publication. This is not intended to be scholarly or pedantic. If it dispels at
least one or two misconceptions about the Fathers of the Church, the author
would feel satisfied. Fr. PAUL VERGHESE Kottayam, Kerala
Epiphany, 1969. CHAPTER ITHE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH1. Who are the Fathers of the Church? The
term has no precise definition in the Orthodox tradition. It is usually
applied to all the great doctors (malpans) and
saintly leaders of the Church. In
the Roman Catholic Church there is a precise term Doctor of the Church, which
the Pope officially confers on some great teacher of the past as occasion
arises. They have more than 20 doctores ecclesiae.
The four most important doctors for the Roman Catholic Church are Gregory the
Great, Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome. These
are not regarded as official teachers of the Church by the universal
tradition of the Church, which we follow. Most of the errors of the Catholic
and Protestant traditions can be traced back to these doctors. On
the other hand, some of the doctors whom they have recently accepted have
always been the formers and shapers of our tradition. For example in 1920,
the Pope declared St. Ephrem as a “Doctor of the
Church”. He was always a towering figure for the eastern tradition, both
Greek and Non - Greek. The particular occasion for the Pope's officially
declaring St. Ephrem, as a doctor of the Church was
the need to use him as authority for certain doctrines about the Blessed
Virgin Mary, which the Catholic Church wanted to declare officially. They
thought that some of the passages in his poems about the Blessed Virgin being
spotless (to - mumo
in Syriac can mean immaculate in Latin) could
be used to support the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. The
Eastern tradition cannot exalt an ancient father according to need. It is
only the consensus of the Church's tradition that so exalts a father as an
authoritative guide into Christian truth. Some
whom the Roman Church regards as Fathers have to be regarded as heretics by
the universal tradition, which the Eastern Church follows. For
example Origen was a great scholar. He was the head
of the famous Theological Institute
in His
teaching was condemned as heretical by the Church of The
Greeks condemned Origen a century and a half later
at the Council of Despite
this, it is seen that Anglicans and Roman Catholics cite Origen
as authority for certain doctrines. Equally
to be questioned is the authority of Tertullian, a
North African lawyer (ca A.D.160-220). Along with Augustine, Tertullian is regarded as an authority for doctrines of
the Trinity and the Incarnation. The universal tradition has not accepted
their teachings, and since these men are the sources of many of the errors of
western legalistic - individualistic teaching the eastern tradition has been
rather careful about not using them as authority for the faith of the Church. The
question then, “who are the Fathers of the church” cannot be too easily
answered. We shall however try to give a minimum list towards the end of this
chapter. 2. How did the Term “Father” Originate? The
Protestant tradition in general detests the word Father as applied to the
great teachers of the Church. Neither do they like to address the priests of
the Church as Father. They reserve this title to the heavenly Father and to
one's earthly father. But
not entirely. Even the most radical American Protestants use expressions like
“Pilgrim Fathers” and “Founding Fathers.” The former expression, at least
since the 18th century is used for the “pilgrims” who came to In
the Church, the name Father seems to have been used for bishops from the
beginning of Christian history. The word papa
(Pope) which means “father” was originally used for all bishops. In Arabic papa became baba and from it the Syrians
got the word bava
which we use often for our Father in heaven, for the Patriarch and Catholicos and also for all Syrian bishops. The
term “Father” as applied to abbots of monasteries is also very ancient.
(Because the monks regarded the abbot or Reesh-dairo as their bishop,
superior and spiritual father, he was called abba (daddy or
Father) and the word abbot
literally means father. The use
of the term for ordinary priests began only in the 19th century, and was
imported from Later, when it became the habit for all priests
to hear confessions, it was applied to all priests in But the use of the term ‘Father’ in a more restricted
sense as applying to the great teachers of the Church dates from the 4th
century. The 318 bishops who participated in the first ecumenical synod of Nicea were referred to by their successors as “the
Fathers of Nicea” or “the 318 Fathers.” The term
referred to their special authority in matters of doctrine. Later on, St. Basil and St. Gregory Nazianzen, still in the 4th century, in their disputes
with the heretics, used other “fathers” as authority to prove the right
doctrine. In 3.
Who
was the Last Father? This
question is difficult to answer. The Roman Catholic Church defined a Father
as characterized by four things - Orthodoxy of doctrine, holiness of life,
the approval of the Church, and antiquity. The Roman Catholics have a very large list of
Fathers, and their last Father in the West was Isidore
of Seville (died 636) and in the East John of Damascus (d.749). The Greeks
also close their patristic period with the last of their seven council’s
(787), i.e. with John of Damascus. For our tradition the patristic period comes to
a close a little earlier, judging by the list of Fathers commemorated in the
intercessory prayers (thoob-den) of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The
last fathers mentioned in the fifth Thoobden is Mar
James of Edessa who died in 708 and Mar Isaac of
Nineveh who died in 700 A. D. But there is no reason why the list should be
finally closed there. We shall here adopt a different scheme, which will
leave the patristic period still open and not concluded. 4.
Four Groups of Fathers For the sake of convenience in study, we shall
divide the Fathers into four groups. (a) The Apostolic and Pre - nicene
Fathers (b) The Fathers of the three Ecumenical
councils (c) The post - conciliar
Fathers (d) The Monastic Fathers The Apostolic fathers were direct disciples of
the Apostles like Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp of Smyrna. Among the other pre-nicene
Fathers we include the fathers of the second and third centuries like Clement
of Alexandria, Ireneus of Lyons etc. By Fathers of the Three Ecumenical councils we
mean not only those bishops and teachers who took part in the Synods of Nicea (325) Ephesus (381) and Constantinople (431) but
also the Fathers who lived and taught during the period 300-450 even if they
were not present at the councils. By post - counciliar
Fathers we mean those who were teachers of the universal Church (Malponie-de-thibell), who belong to the true faith.
Outside this category there are some teachers who are fathers for the Greek
and By monastic fathers we mean the developers of
the great ascetic tradition of the Church i.e. St.Antony,
St. Pachomius, St. Makarios,
St. Simeon Stylites, St. Ephrem
and so on. CHAPTER
II The Apostolic Fathers andOther Pre - nicene FathersThe title Apostolic Fathers was created only in
the 17th century in the course of the debate between the Reformation
(Protestant) and the Counter - Reformation (Roman Catholic). The term is
often rather loosely applied to all writings of the period immediately
following the age of the apostles. More strictly, Apostolic fathers are the
direct disciples of one or more of the Twelve Apostles. Among those now regarded as Apostolic Fathers
in the western Churches are the following: 1. St. Clement of 2. St. Ignatius of He was the third
bishop of 3. Hermas (2nd
century). Very little is known of this Father except through his interesting
book “The Shepherd”. He was a rich man who once denied the Lord, did penance
and was reinstated, His book was almost regarded as
scripture by the ancient Church and was widely used for the instruction
of candidates for baptism. 4. St. Polycarp (ca
69 - ca 155). The Bishop of Smyrna in The importance of these fathers for understanding the
tradition of the Church is enormous. In the first place they make it very clear that there
were many things which the Apostles taught the leaders of the Churches
established by them and which do not appear in the New Testament. The
authority of these apostolic fathers witness to the fact that only a portion,
albeit the most important portion, of the Apostolic tradition was actually
written down in the New Testament. A few questions from these fathers will show their
importance for understanding the true Apostolic teaching, which cannot be got
from the Bible alone: “Since we have gazed into the depths of divine
knowledge, we are bound to perform in due order all that the master bade
us accomplish at their proper reasons. He ordered that the qurbanas (prospheras in Greek) and services (leitourgias) should be performed at their appointed
times and seasons, not at random and without order, and also by his own
supreme will he himself settled where and by whom these are to be performed,
so that all might be done in a holy manner and be pleasing and
acceptable to his will. For they who make their qurbanas
at the appointed times are pleasing to him and blessed, for they do not
transgress in following that which was ordained by the Lord. To the
Archpriest (bishop) is appointed a special liturgical service, the priests
have a special place reserved for them, and the levites
have their own deaconate, to the men of the people (laity) are ascribed
functions appropriate to the laity. “Clement of Ibid. para
XLIV. The following passage is from the epistle of
St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans. (VIII): “Flee from divisions, as the beginning of evil.
Follow, all of you, the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father; and
follow the priesthood (presbytery) as the Apostles. Moreover, reverence the
deacons as the commandment of God. Let no man do anything related to the life
of the Church apart from the bishop. Let that Eucharist be regarded as valid
which is under the bishop or his delegate. Whenever the bishop is seen, there
let the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there the Catholic
Church also is. It is not permitted either to baptize or to hold an agape -
festival apart from the bishop. That which he approves, this is pleasing to
God also, so let all your practices be secure and valid.” In his epistle to the Philadelphians, he
affirms that this was not one of his own ideas, but that the spirit of God
constantly urged him, so that in the assembly he spoke by the prophetic power
of the Holy spirit (not in an unknown tongue): ‘Give heed unto the bishop and
presbytery and deacons.” On the question of the place of the Holy
Eucharist in the Church, the Bible does not give us adequate information
about what the Apostles taught. We learn a great deal about it from St.
Ignatius, and the document called the Didache,
which contains the clear teaching of the Apostles in this regard. Christian heretics who did not respect the
Eucharist were common in the very times of the Apostles. They claimed that
they were “spiritual and therefore did not need “material” sacraments. By the
same token they denied the flesh of our Lord. They held that Jesus Christ was
God, but that his flesh was only an appearance. Hence they are called Docetists (from dokeo - to
seem). St. Ignatius says about them: “They (the Docetists)
hold aloof from the Eucharist and the common prayer, because they do not
acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour,
Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins, and whom the Father in his loving
kindness raised from the dead.” (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans
7) If that is what the disciples of the Apostles
taught, then those who today deny that the Eucharist is the very body and
blood of our Lord have also gone astray from the Apostolic tradition. Here is
another quotation from St. Ignatius’ epistle to the Philadelphians (iv): “Take care to hold but one Eucharist. For one
is the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and there is only one cup of His blood
for our unity; One madbeha
(place of sacrifice), and one bishop with the priests (presbyters) and
deacons; my fellow-servants, so that all that you do may be done according to
God.” The Didache, or to
give its full title, “The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles through the
Twelve Apostles”, is now believed to be a very ancient, document, older than
several of the books of the present New Testament. Though English writers
usually place it in the early second century, recent Catholic scholarship in This book contains some notes of the disciples
of the Apostles as to how they were to baptize and to celebrate the
Eucharist. It concludes: “On the Lord’s day, assemble together and break
bread and give thanks, first making public confession of your faults, that
your sacrifice may be pure. If any man has a quarrel with a friend, let him
not join your assembly until they are reconciled. So that your sacrifice
spoken of by the Lord: “In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice.”
(Mal. 1:11,14) “Appoint therefore for yourselves bishops and
deacons worthy of the Lord; kindly men, who are not greedy for money, men who
are genuine and tested-” (Didache XIV, XV). It is clear from these that those who today
deny that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, and those who do not have bishops and
deacons, do not follow the apostolic teaching. Among the pre-nicene
fathers we should mention a whole school of great teachers who flourished in Melito of
Sardis was one of these great Asian Fathers. In the Syrian and More important is Ireneus,
the great Asian theologian of the second century. He came from His greatest contribution to our faith lies
perhaps in the area of understanding what Tradition itself is. Tradition is the continuing stream of the mind
of the Church. Ireneus has clarified for us the
meaning of this apostolic tradition. Certain heretics had claimed “Apostolic
succession” for their own errors, by pretending that they were the disciples
of the disciples of the Apostles. Over against this false claim to “Apostolic
succession” made by heretics, Ireneus lays down the
true view of Apostolic Tradition. Since his treatment of the subject is too
long to quote, we give below a summary. The Apostles proclaimed the gospel to all,
taught it to their disciples, and later reduced some of it to writing “All
and each of them was equally in possession of the gospel of God” - not just
Peter. St. Mathew wrote down the Gospel in Hebrew. Mark recorded what St.
Peter taught. Luke wrote down the gospel as But when the heretics are refuted from the
Gospels they say that the Bible is not final, and that there is a secret oral
tradition, which has been handed to them from the Apostles. The only way of
testing these false claims to Apostolic tradition is to check them with what
has been handed down from generation to generation in the Churches which the
Apostles themselves established. None of the bishops whom the Apostles
appointed taught the kind of rubbish the Gnostic heretics were teaching (it
would be very useful to apply this test to many of the teachings of
contemporary sects). If there was any secret teaching of the Apostles, they
must have handed it down to those bishops to whom they had entrusted the
Church. There are so many apostolic Churches, where
there is an unbroken line of apostolic succession. In So with “Since there are so many clear testimonies, we
should not seek from others for the truth which can easily be received from
the Church. There the Apostles, like a rich man making a deposit, fully
bestowed upon her all that belongs to the truth, so that whoever wishes may
receive from her the water of life. She is the entrance to life, all the
others are thieves and robbers.* Therefore we ought to avoid them but to love
with the greatest zeal the things of the Church, and so to lay hold of the
tradition of the truth. What if there should be dispute about some matter of
moderate importance? Should we not turn to the oldest Churches, where the
apostles themselves were known, and find out from them the clear and certain
answer to the problem now being raised? Even if the apostles had not left their writings to us, ought we not to
follow the rule of the tradition, which they handed down to those to whom
they committed the churches? Many barbarian people who believe in Christ
follow this rule having (the message of their) salvation written in their
hearts by the spirit without paper and ink. Diligently following the old
tradition, they believe in one God, maker of heaven and earth and of all that
is in them, through Christ Jesus the son of God, who on account of his
abundant love for his creation submitted to be born of a Virgin, himself by
himself uniting man to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and
risen, and having been received up into splendour,
is to come in glory as the Saviour of those who are
saved, and the judge of those who are judged, and will send into eternal fire
those who alter the truth and despise his Father and his coming. Those who
believe in this faith without written documents are barbarians in our speech,
but in their convictions, habits and behaviour they
are, because of their faith, most wise, and are pleasing to God, living in
all righteousness and purity and wisdom. If any one should preach to them the
inventions of the heretics, speaking in their own language, they would at
once stop their ears and run far away not enduring even to listen to such
blasphemous speech. So by that old tradition of the apostles they do not even
take into their minds whatever their impressive words may mean.” Against
Heresies III, 4. Engl. Translation from Cyril Richardson, Ed. Early Christian Fathers. (Library of
Christian Classics. Vol. I pp.374-375). Many things we learn from the disciples of the
Apostles, which are not directly in the Bible. First, on many fundamental questions of faith
the Bible used by itself without knowledge of the Tradition of the Church can
lead to heresy. All the early heretics used the Bible in one form or another.
The Tradition of Christian truth can be found in its fullness only in the
Church. No one can simply take the Bible and sit down and construct a faith
out of it. What the modern sects often present to us as
Biblical truth is little more than their own particular tradition, which may
be a local German or American or English or Dutch tradition of a few hundred
years ago. Only in the Universal tradition of the Church can we learn the
Christian truth and therefore also see the Bible in its true light. We learn, however, also that the disciples of
the Apostles had a very great respect for the Bible, and were very thorough
in their knowledge of the Old Testament and the writings of
there masters the Apostles. In the Orthodox tradition we have no
reason to neglect the Bible. The more authentic knowledge of the bible we
have the more truly Orthodox we become. We learn also, how important the Church, the
Priesthood, and the mysteries of the faith (the sacraments) were for the
disciples of the Apostles. The denial of these realities and a dependence on
the Bible alone (sola Scripture) can be a great
error. The faith is truly experienced and known only by membership in the
Church, which has a responsible and properly apostolic ministry and a high
tradition of the Christian mysteries. Outside that Church even the Bible
becomes a snare and a stumbling block. CHAPTER
III The Golden Age of the FathersThe period from the Ecumenical Council of Nicea (325) to the Council of Chalcedon
(451) has been called the Golden age Eastern Patristic literature. There are many reasons for this flourishing of
Christian thought such as never took place before or after. The official approval of Christianity by
Emperor Constantine in 313 has sometimes been deplored by historians as the
beginning of the decline of Christianity. It is true that the Christian
Church was no longer persecuted and therefore there was no more opportunity
to become martyrs. But martyrdom is not the only way of expressing the
Christian faith. And it is in the context of this new situation
that the Eastern Fathers developed their thought. The new freedom for the Church also meant
greater freedom for heresy. So the denial of Christ’s deity and of the
doctrine of the Trinity could come to the surface and gain support among the
people and even with the Emperor. And the Church Fathers were able to clarify
these doctrines without fear of the Emperor, even at the risk of their very
lives. True thought, the right glorification of God, which is orthodoxy, thus
became the new form of martyrdom. It was also at this time that some of the most
learned of men applied themselves to the clarification of Christian thought.
What an Origen had attempted and failed in the time
of persecution, Athanasius and the Cappodocian Fathers successfully achieved in the age of
the Councils, since the debate could be open and public. Origen
had no heretic or other person really to question his views. The Fathers of
the golden age were constantly under fire from heretics and had to sharpen
their thoughts on the anvil of controversy. It can be said that true discussion of the most
fundamental theological questions took place for the first time in the fourth
century. And by the grace of God, there were a large number of learned and
keen minds who could clarify the issues. It is also true that there were, during this period,
some important theological academies, which could both produce the scholars,
and debate the issues at the same time. Chief among these was the Schools of
Alexandria and We do not have the space here to list all the
important fathers or to summarize their teaching. We give below very brief
sketches of six of the most important fathers of this period. Mar Athanasius, Mar Baeslios, Mar Gregorios Nazianzen, Mar Gregorios of Nyssa, Mar Ioannes
Chrysostomos, and Mar Cyrillos
of Taking the entire period from 325-451, the
following Fathers are of some importance, but we cannot deal with them here: 1.
Alexander of 2. Mar Didymus the Blind 3. Mar Theophilos of 4. Mar Eustathius of 5.
Mar Eusebius of 6. Mar Kurillos of 7. Mar Dioscurus of In addition to these there were the Monastic
Fathers, including St. Ephrem who will be treated
in a later pamphlet. We are also omitting two great teachers of this period
whose Orthodoxy is in question: namely Theodore of Mopsuestia
and Diodore of Tarsus. CHAPTER
IV St. Athanasius (Ca. 296 - 373) One of the most heroic figures of the ancient
Church, he fought the battle against the heresy of Arius
almost single-handed. He attended the Council of Nicea
(325) as Deacon and Secretary to the then bishop of It was during his papacy that the Ethiopian
king became a Christian along with all his subjects, through the work of
Syrian missionaries. He introduced monasticism into the west, where
it seems to have been unknown before. His “life of St. Antony”
is one of the classics of Monastic literature. But most of his writings were directed against
the heresy of Arius and in defense of the teaching
of the Council of Nicea. Though not a great classical scholar, his
knowledge of the scriptures, his clear mind, and his skill in debate made him
a formidable enemy of heretics. It is from his works against Arius that we learn what the heresiarch was teaching. But
his greatest contribution is that he established for ever the true tradition
of the Church that Jesus Christ is the son of God, unoriginate,
uncreated, of the same essence with the father God of God. The two main articles of the Christian Faith are faith in the Holy Trinity and faith in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. In both matters Mar Athanasius laid the foundation of true understanding. Athanasius said clearly “God became man that man may become God.” CHAPTER
V 2.
Mar Baselius of (St.
Basil, the Great-Ca. 330-379) Mar Baselius, one of
the towering giants of ancient Christianity, was an Asian by birth. He is one
of the Cappodocian fathers. Cappodocia
was a province of Mar Baselius was
educated in the best pagan schools of his time, and was thus one of the most
educated of his contemporaries. He studied first from his father and
grandmother, who were themselves both great scholars. He then studied in his
native After all his studies, which he completed with
the greatest honors, he returned to his native “I had wasted much time on follies and spent
nearly all my youth in vain labours, and devotion
to the teachings of a wisdom that God has made foolish. Suddenly I awoke as
out of a deep sleep. I beheld the wonderful light of the Gospel truth, and I
recognized the nothingness of the wisdom of the princes of this world that
was come to naught. I shed a flood of tears over my wretched life, and I prayed for a guide who might form in me
the principles of piety.” He was soon baptized, after having been duly
instructed by his sister Makarina. He then travelled in When he returned, he distributed his wealth
among the poor (he was a very rich man) and went in to solitude for prayer
and fasting. Soon others joined him, including his friend and classmate Mar Gregorios of Nazianzus, though
only temporarily. The community grew and it became a great spiritual center
of Christianity in In a short time he founded other monasteries,
and his sister Makarina started a convent for women
across the river from the men’s monastery. Together they established hospitals for the
sick, nursing homes for lepers, homes for the poor, hotels for travellers and strangers; and the monasteries soon became
a spiritual city, where the poor and the destitute praised God for His
wonderful ways. In addition to his great learning and
spirituality, St. Basil was, like Mar Athanasius, a
man of very great personal courage. He stood up to the Emperor Valens when pressured to support the Arian heresy When
the Emperor sent his Viceroy to threaten Mar Baselius
with confiscation of goods, torture and exile, Basil replied that he had
nothing to be confiscated except a cloak and a few books, and as for exile,
anywhere in the world would be his home. As for torture, he said his body
would give up its life at the first blow, and that Modestus
the Viceroy would be doing him a favour by sending
him off to God so quickly. “Death would be an act of kindness, for it will
bring me nearer to God, for whom I live, and for whom I have been created,.......... and to whom I hasten.” The pagan Modestus
was surprised by this bold answer and said: “No one has spoken to me with
such boldness before.” Mar Baselius replied: “Perhaps you have never met a Christian bishop
before. Fire, swords, beasts and the instruments for tearing the flesh we
desire as delights rather than horrors. Afflict us, torture us, threaten, do
all you can, enjoy your power, but let the Emperor also know that in no way
can you win us over to embrace untruth, though you threaten with the cruellest deeds.” That was the end of the Emperor’s opposition to
Basil. Both the Emperor and the Viceroy were deeply impressed. On another
occasion the Viceroy (Prefect) of Mar Baselius bowed to
no one. He once appealed to Pope Damasus in “The news of the West you know
already..............Really lofty souls, when they are courted, get haughtier
than ever...........If the Lord be propitious to us, what other thing do we
need? If the anger of the Lord lasts on, what help can come to us from the
arrogance of the west? ..........” Mar Baselius’ great
theological contributions were three: (a)
Against Arius and his
disciples he established the full deity of Christ. He thus completed the work
of Mar Athanasius. (b)
He established clearly the deity of the Holy
Spirit. (c)
Thus he established a full doctrine of Holy
Trinity as three hypostases in one ousia. He was also a great monk who laid down the
basic principles of community monasticism - a balance between prayer, study
and work and the need to serve one’s fellowmen by working with one’s own hands.
He was a great man, very learned very aristocratic, who lived in simplicity
and poverty. His humility was not on the surface. He was regarded as a proud
man, but his heart was truly humble. Mar Baselius died on CHAPTER VI3.
Mar Gregorios of Nazianzus
(329-389) Besides
Mar Gregorios was one
of the three Cappodocian Fathers, and cousin and
friend of the other two, namely Mar Baselius and
Mar Gregorius of Nyssa. He was also a class - mate
of St. Basil in He was made a priest in 362, and ten years
later was consecrated Bishop. For two years he was suffragan
bishop to his father, the elder Gregorius. In 379
he went to St. Gregory was a great poet and a powerful orator. His sermons are ornate in style, but very balanced in theology, and full of biblical allusions. His five theological orations are a masterpiece. Along with St. Basil, he wrote the monastic rules for their community, and clarified the doctrine of the Trinity. He established on a sure foundation, along with St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nyssa, the full Godhead of the son and the Holy Spirit. The faith of the Church about the Holy Trinity was formulated by the three Cappodocian Fathers. St. Gregory was a shy, retiring, and sensitive soul, who ran away from all public praise. The towering figure of St. Basil dominated his life throughout, but St. Gregory was as profound and clear in his thinking as St. Basil. There is a true story from his student days in In those days too, young students were just as
mischievously playful as they are today. And every new student had to undergo
a severe test by his fellow students before being too long in school. The students usually laid hold of a new boy,
and took him to their home. He is then teased and questioned and harassed
until some of them weep. The students threaten the new boy with all kinds of
cruelties, and if he does not know that it is all a joke, he may get quite
frightened. And then he was taken to the public bath, where he was further
teased and jostled. When Mar Baselius
came to The fairness and goodness of young Gregory can
be seen in another incident which involved Basil. The students were than organized in regional
groupings, and the Armenian students decided to debate publicly with Basil in
order to bring down his pride. Gregory watched the debate, saw Basil was
winning easily. Gregory took pity on the poor Armenian students and took
their side in the debate. Basil was now loosing the debate, and the Armenians
began to rejoice. Finally Gregory saw that Basil’s pride was well - broken,
and then he joined Basil’s side, so that ultimately Basil won the debate.
From then on Basil and Gregory became bosom pals. St. Gregory’s brother, Caesarius
was an outstanding doctor, who became chief physician to the Emperor Constantius when already quite young. Caesarius’character,
manner and skill combined in an unusual way to produce a man destined for
great success in the world. But Caesarius was a
profound Christian, and Constantius’ successor, the
anti Christian Julian, tried to make him into a pagan. St. Gregory fought for
his brother against the Emperor who was also his class - mate at Finally Caesarius
left the Imperial court and joined Mar Baselius and
Mar Gregorios in their mountain monastery. It was
the presence of Dr. Caesarius which made it easy
for the monastery of Mar Baselius to build their
first hospitals and look after the sick in the whole surrounding area. But let us get back to Mar Gregorius.
His father was one of the last married bishops of the Church. He himself was
an unmarried bishop, like the other Cappodocians,
and all the other fathers of whom we speak in this booklet. One day his own parish people in Nazianzus took hold of him when he was a young man of
about 29 and took him to his own father, asking that he be ordained as a
priest. Gregory ran away in to Some months later he returned to his parish and
found all parish people very angry with him. Some accused him of being afraid
to accept the priesthood, because he feared the Emperor Julian. Others said he
was a coward. Yet others said that he was ambitious, and he ran away because
they did not directly make him a bishop. In his sermon explaining why he ran away, he
describes the great qualities necessary for a priest. His sermon became the
basis for several later books by others on the priesthood and its high
responsibility. His greatest theological contribution lay at
two points. On the one hand St. Gregory Nazianzen
as well as St. Gregory of Nyssa held that God could not be understood by the
human mind or by any other created mind including the angels. He can only be apprehended from what He does.
And from what we now see as His work in the world, we can see that He is
three in One - the Holy Trinity. This was his other contribution. He is
called Theologos or Theologian because he showed
finally that the Logos, the Word of God, was fully Theos,
i. e. God. He also was a great help to St. Basil in
proving that the Holy Spirit was also fully God. The incomprehensibility of God and the Trinity
may thus be regarded as two doctrines to which Mar Gregorius
gave final shape. He taught also that the Eucharist was a true
sacrifice of the body and blood of our Lord and that the Blessed Virgin Mary
was the bearer of God Theotokos. He became Patriarch of Constantinople for a
short period during the famous synod of CHAPTER
VII Mar Gregorius of Nyssa (C.330-C.395) Mar Gregorius was the younger brother of Mar Baselius, and just as learned as his brother, though he never had the advantage of travelling which St. Basil had. His health was very poor from childhood. He was born around 330 A. D., perhaps in 335.
From his youth he wanted to be a priest, but in fact he became a rhetorician
- the ancient equivalent of a combined professor and politician. Later he left his profession and entered the
monastery of his brother Basil. Most of his education came from his
grandmother, his eldest sister, the saintly and scholarly St. Makrina. He became bishop of Nyssa around 371. This was
the time when the heresy of Arius was very strong.
Many bishops were followers of Arius. The Arian
bishops opposed Mar Gregorius and deposed him from
the episcopate in 376, with the consent of the Emperor Valens. Valens
died in 378. St. Gregory was brought back from exile. He was one of the main
drafters at the second Ecumenical Synod ( In his later life, Mar Gregorius
travelled widely as a preacher in great demand. His
teaching had many fresh and original elements. The western Church generally
finds St. Gregory’s teaching opposed at many points to that of Augustine,
especially in the matter of original sin. They have therefore not been very
keen to make use of his writings, which are actually more faithful to the
True Tradition of the Church than what Augustine taught. Augustine is not
recognized as a teacher of the faith by the Eastern Churches, while St.
Gregory is recognized as such both by East and West. Both Western and Eastern theology need to
relearn the teachings of this profound theologian of the Church. Augustine regards man as totally evil. Therefore without the grace of God, man can do nothing good, and even that which appears like virtue in pagans is only a “splendid vice.” Gregory on the other hand believes that Man is created in the image of God, and therefore potentially capable of all good. But he is now fallen in sin. In Christ God has become man so that the power of sin may be destroyed. Christ unites us with himself and fills us into the true image of good. He thus transforms us into the true image of God - to become partakers in the divine nature. Man
is a sinner, according to St. Gregory, but that is not his nature. His
created nature is to be like God, capable of all good. He disagrees
fundamentally with Augustine who of course did not know enough Greek to read
his writings. St.
Gregory also teaches that the world is good, since it is created by God. Man
is made to enjoy both the earthly beauty and the heavenly joy. Augustine
teaches that the world (the city of the earth) is bad, and that Man should
love only heaven, the city of St.
Gregory taught that man is made to rule the creation, and that his nature is
a kingly nature. He can fully exercise this nature only in union with God.
St. Gregory welcomed the knowledge, the science and technology of this world,
as something good and necessary for man’s growth, where as Augustine was more
inclined to despise these things as mere folly before God. Augustine
was afraid of human freedom. St. Gregory taught that goodness without freedom
was not virtue; that God was totally free, and that man is also meant to be
free in doing good. Augustine believed man to be completely moved by God
alone in doing good. He had a very low estimate of
human freedom. St. Gregory of Nyssa on the other hand wanted human freedom to
develop to its full other measure in order that he may really be the
perfection of all good. St.
Gregory taught that only by a life of discipline and worship we could grow
into God’s goodness. He taught that by the sacraments we became totally
united with God in Christ and were thus transformed. He taught that the
Eucharist was the true body and blood of our Lord. CHAPTER VIII Mar Ivanios the Golden - Mouthed ( The Prince of Preachers, this
brilliant father of Church was born in He
wanted, mostly by the persuasion of St. Basil, when very young, to become a
monk. But his mother, a widow, was sick, and he had to look after her. So he
stayed at home and imposed a monastic rule upon himself. In
374 his mother died. John was now free to be a monk. But the people of In 381, he was ordained deacon by Mar Meletios, and was attached to Bishop Flavian
of St.
John Chrysostom’s preaching for 12 years as a
priest changed the moral values of the city. He preached mainly from the
Bible. His homilies on the Bible have earned him a title as one of the
greatest Bible teachers of all history. He had a great capacity to discern
deep spiritual meaning in the Bible and to apply it directly to the practical
problems. The court, the clergy and the people had all become morally lazy,
because their bishops had no great spiritual quality with which to inspire
them. They were self-indulgent, luxury loving, quarrelsome. As the bishops,
so the people. Mar Ivanios preached also against the economic and social
evils of his city. He preached against vice and extortion, corruption and
bribery, black-marketing and nepotism. He enjoined the virtues of humility,
honesty, simplicity, love and service. In
398 he was chosen by the Emperor Arcadius to become
Patriarch of the In He
then began attacking the corruption in the Government and the Imperial
palace. He preached against the personal conduct of the pleasure-loving
Empress and the Minister of the Emperor. They became his enemies. All the
rich and self-indulgent people of Mar Theophilos of Alexandria took advantage of all these
enmities and convened the Synod of the Oak (403 A. D) which excommunicated
Mar Chrysostom on 29 charges, almost all of them
false. He
was soon reinstated by the Emperor. But he continued to incur the displeasure
of the Empress. He was again excommunicated, on the charge that he assumed
charge of a see when he had been canonically excommunicated. He was exiled
and persecuted, and when his health failed, was made to walk very long
distances in severe weather, and died while walking, falling on the road,
breathing his last in 407 and uttering the words “Glory be
to the Lord of all for everything.” Mar Ivanios was not a great theologian, but he was an
outstanding preacher and bible teacher. He was a man of great personal
holiness. He, along with Mar Athanasius, are the
two most popular Eastern fathers among western people, probably because they
are easier to understand than the other more profound fathers. Theologically,
his greatest teaching was on the Priesthood. We give below a few quotations: “When
you see the Lord sacrificed and lying before you, and the High Priest
(bishop) standing over the sacrifice and praying, and all who partake being coloured with that precious blood, can you think that you
are still among men and still standing on earth? Are you not at once
transported to heaven and, having driven out of your soul every carnal
thought, do you not with soul naked and mind pure look round upon heavenly
things? Oh, the wonder of it! Oh the loving kindness of God to men! He who
sits above with the Father is at that moment held in our hands, and gives himself
to those who wish to clasp and embrace him - which they do all of them, with
their eyes............ Anyone who considers how much it means to be able, in
his humanity, still entangled in flesh and blood, to approach that blessed
and immaculate being, will see clearly how great is the honour
which the grace of the spirit has bestowed on priests.”* He also says clearly that the Priest has been
given an authority higher than that given to the angels - that of forgiving
sins, of binding and loosing something on earth and thereby binding and
loosing in heaven. * CHAPTER
IX Mar Kurilos of At the Synod of the Oak in 403, when Mar Ivanios Chrysostomos was excommunicated, Patriarch Mar Theophilos of Alexandria was accompanied by his nephew, Kurilos, who later became his successor as Patriarch of Alexandria. We know very little about his early life. He
was born in In 412, when Patriarch Mar Theophilos
died, even though the Government tried to get their own man elected, the
people chose Mar Kurilos. He was merciless in his
opposition to Jews and heretics. The Government chief (Prefect) was opposed
to his election, and became his great enemy. But the monks of the Egyptian
desert were all on Mar Kurilos’ side. And they were
very powerful in their influence and capacity to use any means including
violence to the Orthodox faith. His biggest fight was with the Patriarch of
Constantinople, however. That Patriarch was a heretic, none other than Nestorius. We are just beginning to understand what
Nestorians actually taught regarding the Person of Christ. The text - books
say that Nestorius taught that christ
was two persons with two natures - a divine person and a human
person. It is quite clear that Nestorius rejected
the word Theotokos
as applied to the Mother of our Lord. This word means “God bearer,” and
affirms that the child in the Blessed Virgin Mary’s womb was God and man from
the very conception-it was not the case that Mary conceived a human child who
later became the bearer of God. Nestorius
attacked the word Theotokos
and wanted to use only Christo-tokos,
Christ-bearer. It was his attack of the word Theotokos rather than his
belief in two persons that caused the Church to condemn him as a heretic.
Perhaps Nestorius did not fully realize what he was
teaching; and he was Patriarch of the imperial City of Nestorius
also taught that the Church was wrong in believing that it was the Second
Person of the Trinity who suffered on the cross and tasted death in the
flesh. He insisted that only the human nature. Mar Kurilos
insisted that the Logos was the subject of all the actions of Christ and
therefore we cannot deny that the Logos experienced everything through the
human soul in Christ. Nestorius was
not a clear thinker. He therefore denied all the sacred teaching of the
Church which he could not understand. If he were just a private individual,
his unclear teaching could have gone unnoticed. But as Patriarch of
Constantinople, he had no right to deny the faith of the Church. Mar Kurilos therefore took the initiative to question Nestorius, and got his heresy condemned at the Council of
Ephesus (431 A. D.) St. Cyril’s formula was “God the Logos did not come into a man, But he truly became Man, while remaining God.” Nestorius taught that the Logos “indwelt” the man Jesus.
St. Cyril regarded this as too loose a relationship between God and Man in
Christ. God did not simply dwell in Jesus as in a temple, but Jesus Christ
was God become man without ceasing to be God. And therefore Christ has only
one nature- “the one nature of the Word of God Incarnate,” which is both
fully human and fully divine, but cannot be called two natures, because they
have united to form one single divine-human nature of God-in-the-flesh, Jesus
Christ. Mar Kurilos knew the
distinction between deity and humanity - it is clear that the former is
Creator and the latter is creature. But in Christ Jesus the Creator has
become the creature without ceasing to be the Creator. That is the miracle
and the mystery of the Incarnation. We are not “monophysites”
when we thus follow the teaching of our father and father of the Universal
Church Mar Kurilos. Monos means in Latin only. ‘Monophysite’
means believing in one nature only (presumably the divine nature). We believe
in one united divine-human nature, not in one of the two natures only. We are
neither diophysites nor monophysites,
but “mia-physites”
(mia in
Greek means one). We do not deny the human nature of Christ, but believe that
one Person has only one nature, and that Christ has one divine - human
nature, the divine nature being His in eternity and the human nature by the
Incarnation. We cannot believe, however that the two natures are separate or
separable. They form one single nature. This is the teaching of Mar Kurilos, which may be summarised
as follows: (a) The nature of Christ cannot be divided into two after the union by Incarnation. (b) The actions of Christ cannot be attributed to two different
subjects - one divine and one human. It is one and the same Christ who
performs miracles and also hungers and thirsts. (c) The Word of God is hypostatically united to the humanity, which
was assumed, and the two operate together, the Word being always the subject. The controversy between Nestorius
and Mar Kurilos was settled finally at the Council
of Ephesus in 431 when the teaching of Nestorius
was condemned, and he was “dispossessed of all dignity in the Church”. St.
Cyril is the touchstone of Christology for East and West, for those who in
one united divine-human nature. St. Cyril died in 444. |