I. Holy fathers and church writers of the ante-Nicene period (I-III centuries)

Holy Fathers - who are they?

Holy fathers, or teachers of the Church, are those saints who, through their labors, formulated, founded, or helped establish any aspect of Church life.

These saints lived at different times, but each one was decisive for the Church in some way. Either during the period of church formation, or in an era of schisms and spiritual strife, or in the conditions of a “changing world” (in general or in a particular country). The Holy Fathers either set the foundations of the doctrine (as in the first centuries of Christianity), or rediscovered them anew - for their era.

At one time, the teachers of the Church laid the foundations of what now seems familiar to us: the course of divine services, the texts of prayers, monasticism as such, the composition of the books of the New Testament - the language itself...

In other words, these are saints, without whom the Church in its current form would not exist.

(Sometimes the term “holy fathers” is considered even more broadly - meaning by the teacher of the Church any saint (that is, a holy priest or bishop) and any reverend (that is, a holy monk), since each, to one degree or another, was also a father - teacher - even if only within the confines of his monastery).

I. Holy fathers and church writers of the ante-Nicene period (I-III centuries)

“Teacher of many saints” (the expression of Blessed Jerome), Origen is the greatest of the theologians of the ante-Nicene period. He compiled the first dogmatic system, posed a number of questions and tried to find satisfactory answers to them - “tried to embrace, understand and explain everything.” “Even with his mistakes,” says one scholar, “Origen outlined the path for future solutions” and contributed to the general revitalization of theological thought.38

The Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry, a student of Plotinus, spoke of Origen this way: “He lived like a Christian, but thought like a Hellenic.” Coming from Porphyry, this could be praise, but it is also an indication of the weaknesses of Origen’s thought as a Christian theologian.

In relation to philosophy, Origen was an eclectic. Origen was most influenced by Platonism and Neoplatonism. The entire idealistic structure of his system is imprinted with the Platonic spirit: such is his preference for the ideal being over the sensual; the doctrine of ideas, pre-existence and fall of souls, etc. It can be argued that Platonic philosophy influenced him in the form of Neoplatonism, which at that time began to be formulated in the teaching of Ammonius Saccas, Origen's teacher, and was developed in the writings of Plotinus, his younger contemporary.

Doctrine of God

Origen begins his system with a presentation of the doctrine of God (see: On the Principles. Book 1, Chapter I - “About God”).

Origen ascends in his contemplation from being relative and changing in time, where everything arises and changes, to being absolute and unchanging.

The main definition of God for Origen is the concept of Him as the beginning of everything - the Self-Start that gives rise to everything, or the First Cause. As a beginning, God is one, for there can only be one beginning. He is absolute unity, a monad. Other definitions of God follow from this: a) as a monad, God is an absolutely simple and uncomplicated being; There are no parts in Him;

b) as in simple existence, in God corporeality, even the most subtle, is unthinkable, for everything corporeal is subject to division.

God is the Personal Spirit, the Mind, whose analogy is the human mind.

Only Origen's view of the infinity of God is original. Origen denies the infinity of God in essence and power. Everything that is limitless and indefinite is unknowable. If God were infinite, then He would not know Himself, would not be an omniscient Mind. The omnipotence of God is limited by His goodness, justice, and wisdom.

However, God, as an absolute principle, is elevated above space and time. He is not limited to space, but He Himself embraces everything; for Him there is not even space: He is omnipresent. God is not subject to time, has no beginning or end. He is even above time: He is eternal; With Him it is always “today” and there is no change of time.

God is unchangeable; in Him there is no transition from one state to another; all His properties are effective from eternity. The concept of God's immutability is important in Origen's system. God the Father is Father from the beginning, and not in time; otherwise a change would have to be allowed in Him; hence the eternity of the birth of the Son. God's omnipotence is active from the beginning; hence the eternity of the creation of the world.

Thus, Origen's teaching about God is sublime. But the exaltation of the Father - the first principle - did not have a particularly favorable effect on Origen’s presentation of the second principle - Logos; Origen's entire Logology is based on his doctrine of God.

The Doctrine of the Logos and His Birth

The birth of the Logos must be presented outside of temporal (against the opinions of individual apologists) and spatial (against the emanatism of the Gnostics) relations. The eternity of the birth of the Son itself follows from the concept of the immutability of the Father. “The Father, by His very existence, as a force, presupposes the existence of the Son - the Word” (V.V. Bolotov ).

The Son is the Wisdom and radiance of the glory of God; Therefore, it cannot be allowed that there was a time when God was without Wisdom or without Light. The birth of the Son not only had no beginning in time, but also cannot be considered as an accomplished act. “The Father did not beget the Son and ceased to beget, but He always begets Him.” Eternal Radiance comes from the eternal Light. Here Origen for the first time so clearly revealed the doctrine of not only the eternal, but also the constantly eternal birth of the Son.

Spatial representations in the birth of the Logos are unacceptable due to the incorporeality of God. God is simple and indivisible, and therefore no emanations, or outflows, divisions or reductions of essence are conceivable in Him. On this basis, Origen even rejected the expression “from the essence of the Father,” seeing in it a hint of an emanation from the Divine essence.

To better understand the birth of the Son, Origen uses an analogy. Origen considers the analogy of the utterance of a human word, so common among previous church writers, to be insufficient and not alien to spatial relations, since the word is an external sound. He himself often suggests viewing the birth of the Son as similar to how desire is born from thought.

Origen considers the will of the Father to be the inaccurate beginning of the existence of the Logos. Objecting to emanatism (“from the essence of the Father”), he often called the Son born “from the will of the Father.” This formula gave reason to accuse Origen of considering birth to be the same act of the will of God as creation, especially since he also considered creation to be eternal; It thus turned out that Origen recognized the Logos as a creature. However, this is unfair, and Origen does not express such views anywhere in his writings. If he calls Christ “the creature” and “the one who happened,” he always means: “The Lord created me” (Proverbs 8:22); Moreover, he considered Wisdom to be created because She contained within Herself the totality of ideas of the created world.

In essence, birth and creation in Origen are clearly distinguished: from the first comes the unchangeable Son, from the second the changeable world; The Son does not come from nothing and is not outside the essence of the Father, but the world comes from non-existence and is an external being.

The origin of the Son from the will of the Father is not, for Origen, as for the apologists, a random act related to God’s decision to create the world and conditioned by the purposes of creation (the significance of the Logos as a mediator). The birth of the Son follows from the inner necessity of the very life of the Divine.

Origen, with his teaching about the eternity of the birth of the Son and the internal justification of its necessity, gives a more sublime “Logology” than his predecessors, and in many ways approaches the Nicene Confession. But he differs from him in that he recognizes the birth of the Son not from the essence, but from the power of the Father, although he considers the Son “only by nature and therefore only begotten” (Book I, Chapter 2, § 5, etc.)

Doctrine of the Son's Relationship to the Father

The Logos, being Divine Wisdom and the Word, differs from the limited human wisdom and word in that it has independent real existence as a special Hypostasis, existing substantially, like the Father. In view of the monarchist errors of his time, Origen especially emphasizes the hypostatic differences between the Word and the Father (this is his merit).

While carefully pointing out the difference between the Son and the Father, Origen did not establish their unity, in particular, their consubstantiality and equality in Divinity.

On the last question, Origen spoke more decisively in the spirit of subordinationism than his predecessors.

In his opinion, one Father is in the proper sense a Monad, original (the Beginning of everything). The Son depends on Him for being. He eternally receives His existence from Him.

The Father alone in the proper sense is God, Samogod (Αύτόθεος). Logos is δεύτερος Θεός. He becomes God through the participation of the Father's Divinity, for from the beginning he abides with the Father. In a word, He is God by communion. God alone is absolutely good, good in the proper sense. The Son is only the image of the Father's goodness. In the proper sense, it is not goodness that belongs to Him, but justice, for He is the Teacher of people and the coming Judge. God alone has complete knowledge of Himself. He embraces both Himself and the Son. But the Son, although he knows the Father, does not fully, for he cannot embrace the Father. Moreover, the Son does not know everything in created existence: He does not know the day of the end of the world, does not know in its entirety even the divine plan of redemption: He prayed that this cup would pass from Him, for He wanted to drink a heavier cup and perform a more universal good deed, spreading to a larger number of creatures (so that the Jews and Judas do not perish).

Prayer in the proper sense (προσευχή) should be addressed only to God the Father. One should not pray to any of those born, not even to Christ Himself, but only to one God of all and the Father, to whom the Savior Himself prayed and taught us to pray (On Prayer, 15). Prayers can, however, be sent through Christ as High Priest.

As we see, Origen in his Logology combined ideas of two orders: his sublime idea of ​​the eternal Word is intertwined with pronounced subordinationism. Hence, Saint Athanasius could refer to him as a defender of Orthodoxy, and Origen’s later opponents could talk about his “blasphemy.” (In any case, it is unfair to see Arianism in Origen’s teaching: he recognized the Son as God and did not consider Him a creature).

Doctrine of the Holy Spirit

Proving the eternity of the Son, Origen declared: “The same must be said about the Holy Spirit,” and in general speaks about Him insofar as it seemed necessary to establish a point of view on the Person of Jesus Christ. However, Origen clearly confesses the Person of the Holy Spirit as a special Hypostasis. He receives His existence eternally from the Father through the Son. Proceeding through the Son, the Holy Spirit receives from Him all perfections, especially the knowledge of the Father, and therefore stands in a subordinate relationship not only to the Father, but also to the Son. (See: On the Beginnings. Book I, vol. 3).

Mutual relationship of the Persons of the Holy Trinity

Origen explains by Their actions in the world.

He considered the activity of the Holy Trinity as if in the form of narrowing concentric circles. The largest circle, as if embracing others, belongs to the Father; this sphere, extended to all beings, is the activity of the Father. The Son, whose activity extends to rational creatures, is the second circle. The third, smaller circle is the Holy Spirit acting on the saints. Origen resolved the problem of the difference between the Persons of the Holy Trinity and was the first to introduce the formula “three Hypostases”. This is his dogmatic-historical merit.

Cosmology

God, in His infinite goodness, revealed Himself in the creation of creatures. Since the omnipotence of God can never be imagined as inactive and idle, it must be recognized that it eternally had an object of its activity. Therefore, Origen recognizes the creation of the world as eternal. But since such a conclusion was in conflict with the church teaching about the end of the world, Origen got out of the difficulty by assuming an endless series of successive worlds; each of them has an end, but as a whole they are eternal. This is how he came to the theory of the plurality of worlds.

The eternal creative power of God, first of all, was revealed in the creation of spirits - equal in nature - which, however, Origen did not think of as completely pure from subtle materiality, for in the proper sense, he considered only the Holy Trinity to be a spiritual being, alien to corporeality. A distinctive feature of created beings, as opposed to absolute being, is their changeability. Further creativity manifested itself in the creation of matter. The reason for its creation was the fall (καταβολή - overthrow) of the spirits. To correct them, the Lord imprisoned them in matter.

Matter is the basis of bodies and is characterized by the ability to transform into different forms (wood, fire, smoke). Hence it always takes a form corresponding to the perfection of the rational being by which it is perceived: in lower beings it takes the form of gross bodies, in higher ones it can become enlightened and spiritualized. In any case, it does not in itself represent evil and does not hinder the development of spiritual beings.

The decline of spirits was different; some fell away from God more, others less. From this difference came all the differences that are observed in this world, and, above all, the gradation of classes of being. Those of the spirits who, more than others, retained a fiery desire for God, formed the ranks of Angels, distinguished from each other by their merits. They are clothed in subtle etheric bodies with varying degrees of radiance. The spirits that fell away from God clothed themselves in denser luminous matter and formed the heavenly bodies - the sun, moon and stars. Even more distant from God and cooled spirits turned into the souls (ψυχή from ψύχω - to blow, to cool) of people. Depending on their merits during the period of pre-existence, the souls of people receive different fates on earth. The most sinful souls are born in ugly, ugly bodies; purer ones - in beautiful and perfect ones. In the same sense, other inequalities among people are explained. It is because of their previous merits that some people are born with brilliant mental abilities, others - extremely stupid, some - meek, others - cruel, some - barbarians, others - Greeks, some - noble and rich, others - slaves and poor people. This is how Origen thought to explain, under the assumption of the preexistence of souls, those inequalities that so amazed him in earthly life and which he considered in no way reconcilable with the perfections of the Creator. But the souls of people do not yet represent the last stage of the fall. Below fell the spirits who turned into demons; they received vile and dark, although invisible, bodies and were cast into the underworld; Of them all, the devil has cooled off the most - this is the most sinful spirit.

All these differences are based on the free will of intelligent beings. Hence, there are no impassable boundaries between them. Souls can develop either towards good or towards evil and, thus, either rise or fall along the ladder of existence. In the first case, they are spiritualized and ranked among the angels, in the second, they fall to a bestial life. However, in this entire process of world development, the good will of God operates, which directs everything towards the initial restoration of fallen spirits. The sufferings and disasters of this world and the very creation of matter have as their final goal not their punishment, but their correction and education. All world history, therefore, is the history of the divine economy (oikonomia - οικονομία), the dispensation of salvation (see on Origen’s cosmology: “On the Beginnings,” book II, chapters 3, 9 and book III, chapter 5, etc. .)

The history of man is only part of the world process; man is also subject to divine economy. There are three parts in man (trichotomy): in him, a god-like soul (a cooled spirit) is connected through the animal soul with the flesh. The rational soul has free will and the ability to ascend again to pure life. The unreasonable soul makes man related to animals. Due to such a heterogeneous composition, a person always experiences internal discord in his life. By his nature, he initially received the image of God, and with it the opportunity, through exercise in virtues, to achieve godlikeness. But, striving for this goal, he must fight the weakness of his nature. This is because all people are subject to sin. The Doctrine of Original Sin

and its universality is not alien to Origen. True, it took on an original shade for him, since Origen attributed sin to the pre-worldly universal fall of souls, but he also admitted that birth itself, the union of the soul with the body, defiles a person with the filth of sin, and therefore considered Baptism for infants necessary.

From the state of fall, the godlike soul strives to ascend to the original bliss. It completely depends on her free will. But due to man’s weakness, he needs Divine help for salvation. This help is constantly provided to him by Angels, in particular the Guardian Angel. To an even greater extent, it is exerted by the Logos with His mysterious influences in the world through the saints and prophets. The revelation of the Logos received its completion only in His incarnation (see: On the Beginnings. Book I, Chapter 7; Book II, Chapter 8, etc.)

The incarnation of the Son of God was necessary because otherwise people would not be able to contemplate the Highest Word. The very union of Divinity and humanity together is an incomprehensible mystery.

In elucidating the dogma of the incarnation, Origen raised against the Gnostics the question of the human soul of Christ.

This soul served as a mediating principle in the incarnation of the Logos, for the direct union of the divine nature with matter was impossible. The soul of Christ belonged to the number of spirits created by God, but in its pre-worldly existence it stood out from among the others in that only one did not fall away from God and remained in flaming love for Him. Due to long exercise in goodness, she became so close to Him that it became impossible for her to fall back into sin; The Logos united with this soul for our salvation, and through it with the body.

His body fully corresponded to the superiority and perfection of His soul, for every soul forms a body consistent with itself. Therefore, the body of Christ was of extraordinary beauty and perfection, and if the prophet Isaiah (53:1-3) speaks of the ugly appearance of Christ: “I saw Him and had no name for appearance or goodness,” then this only indicates that the flesh of Christ took on one kind or another, depending on the spiritual mood of those with whom He dealt.

With the perception of true humanity, the Logos did not undergo any change: He remained essentially (ούσία)) Logos. Hence He has two natures, and He is Deus-Homo. “In Christ the nature of His Divinity is a different matter, because He is the Only Begotten Son of God; and another matter is human nature, which He recently took on according to the economy” (On the Beginnings. Book I, Chapter 2, § 1).

The two natures in Christ form one being, so that “Christ is something composite” (Against Celsus. Book II, § 9).

Origen tried to understand the difficult problem - how to imagine the unity of the Face of Christ at the union of the Logos with the human soul - with the help of an analogy:

a) moral unity, as it were, merges personalities with each other - thus, one who cleaves to the Lord becomes one spirit with Him; b) red-hot iron combines the properties of fire and iron, takes on the appearance and burning of fire, and so the soul dissolves in the Logos.

The consequence of union with the Logos was the transformation, the deification of the human nature of Christ. IN

This especially needs to be said about His flesh after the resurrection. He rose from the dead and deified the human nature He assumed. His flesh was spiritualized and almost resolved into spirit, merged with the Divine and became omnipresent: He is everywhere and penetrates everything - one should not think of Him that He is confined in any one place. In a word, the flesh of Christ became a miraculous body (see: Against Celsus. Book II, § 62; Book III, § 41).

Doctrine of Atonement and Salvation

The consequences of sin were threefold: 1) ignorance of God; 2) submission to the power of the devil; 3) breaking the moral union with God.

The Lord delivered man from all these consequences of sin. 1. The Lord drove away ignorance by telling people the truth. He taught by word and example, and in such a way that he was understandable to everyone and satisfied the needs of every person. His words for scientists contained deep thoughts, but they were also accessible to children. Using His example, the Lord showed the way to perfection and likeness to God. 2. The Lord freed people from the power of the devil. Origen clarified this with the help of a whole theory of ransom from the devil. People, having been defeated by the devil, became his slaves and became his property legally. It was also necessary to free them from his power on legal grounds. And so the Lord offered His soul as a ransom for many. The devil agreed, understanding the full value of Christ’s sinless soul. But he did not know the plan of Divine economy, did not know that the death of Christ would destroy the power of death. He thought to keep the soul of Christ in hell and in his power. But, having shown injustice to the sinless Christ, he could not keep Him in his power and, according to the agreement, he had to give up the people redeemed by Christ. Christ brought them out of hell and resurrected Himself. Thus, Christ seemed to deceive the devil, which, however, was quite fair in relation to the seducer of people. 3. Christ not only redeemed people from the devil, but also offered a propitiatory sacrifice to God for them. Sin could be atoned for by the suffering of people or sacrifice for them. The people themselves could not make the sacrifice, for it had to be sinless. And so the Lord, being sinless, “laid on His head the sins of the human race, for He Himself is the Head of the body of the Church,” and bore the full brunt of punishment. He voluntarily endured a series of griefs, sufferings and, finally, death itself on earth. This is how He reconciled people with God.

The atonement accomplished by Christ has universal significance. Christ died not only for people, but also for all other rational beings. The fruits of His death extend to the entire cosmos, even to the angels. However, sometimes Origen spoke in the sense that the Lord, for the redemption of the angels, Himself became an angel and suffered for them just as for people (see: On the Beginnings. Book I, Chapter 2, “About Christ”; Book. II, Chapter 6, “On the Incarnation of Christ”).

Eschatology

10. Origen's eschatology is spiritualistic in nature, which is quite consistent with the philosophical direction of his theology. He understood almost all the sayings of Holy Scripture about the ultimate fate of the world and man in a spiritual sense. He rejects chiliasm with all decisiveness, reproaching its supporters for foolishness and referring to the evidence of the Holy Scriptures about the spirituality of the future body.

A characteristic point in Origen’s teaching about the afterlife of man is the idea of ​​​​the possibility of continuing the moral development, purification and improvement of a person even after his death - the process of saving an individual person does not end in earthly life, but continues beyond the grave. This teaching flowed from Origen’s basic concepts of the goodness of God and the free will of man. God has invested in man the desire for truth, goodness and godlikeness; this desire must be satisfied, for it was not given in vain; why its implementation must be assumed in the afterlife of man, for for God nothing is impossible and for the Creator there is nothing incurable. On the other hand, no matter how a person falls, he always retains free will, and with it the possibility of correction and improvement. The entire afterlife is a process of purification and improvement of man.

After the resurrection, the body will be different from earthly flesh in its qualities: it will be spiritual, glorified; it will not need nutrition, digestion, reproduction, and therefore the corresponding organs will be absent. But still, the resurrected bodies will be identical with the earthly ones (it would be unfair if flesh other than that which labored was awarded). This identity, however, lies not in the material particles themselves, not in the composition of a person, but in the external form of the body. The fact is that the composition of a person is constantly changing during his lifetime, some elements are replaced by others due to metabolism. The very appearance of a person remains unchanged precisely because in the body of each person there is a seed of the Logos or an internal force that forms his body according to its type, just as a wheat seed produces wheat sprouts corresponding to its type. This force is always preserved even after the destruction of the body and can, according to the word of God, form a spiritual body from material particles, identical in form to earthly flesh. The resurrected bodies will correspond to the qualities of the souls; Sinners will be clothed in dark bodies, saints in light ones. The further development of souls will be accompanied by more and more spiritualization of the bodily substance until it is resolved into a subtle spiritual “not made by hands” corporeality (On the Principles. Book I, Chapter 6, § 4).

As for sinners, they will be tormented in fire. This fire, however, is not material and prepared in advance, but spiritual - the torment of conscience, which every sinful soul collects in itself, like bad juices that cause feverish heat. This torment will not last forever. God punishes in order to correct; like a doctor, He uses fire to heal serious illnesses and thus cleanses sinners from their sins. If the Holy Scripture speaks of the eternity of torment, it is in order to distract sinners from their sins through the fear of punishment; the expression “forever and ever” means a certain period in it. Throughout the centuries, all souls without exception will turn to God. They will all enjoy bliss, although not the same for everyone, for in the Father’s house there are many abodes. In the end, everything will be restored to its original state. The material world will be destroyed. God will be all in all, for the soul will not contemplate or remember anything except God. This is the final restoration of everything - apokatastasis (άποκατάστασις). The idea of ​​apocatastasis leads to the assumption that the devil will also be saved. Origen, indeed, allowed for the possibility of the conversion of evil angels, and says that the last enemy - death, will be destroyed, but “not in the sense that it will no longer exist, but in the sense that it will not be an enemy and death, for nothing is impossible for the Almighty and there is nothing incurable for the Creator” (On Principles. Book III, Chapter 6, § 5).

Apparently, apocatastasis does not mean the complete completion of the world process. The free will of rational beings always presupposes the possibility of a fall, and with the fall again follows the need to create matter to correct spirits until a new apocatastasis, and so on, ad infinitum. At this point Blessed Jerome reproached Origen's system. However, Origen claims that the free will of created beings will be strengthened in goodness by the will of God and so will continuously remain unchanged (see: On the Principles. Book I, Chapter 6; Book I, Chapter 10; Book III, Chapter 6; Against Celsus, Book VII, §27–32).

Origen's eschatological teaching was the most criticized. Origen himself was aware of the boldness of some of his opinions and therefore expressed them with reservations.

* * *

Origen’s system, which V.V. Bolotov calls “the most complete example of Christian gnosis,” suffered a sad fate. None of Origen's followers mastered it as a whole, but dwelled on one side or another of it, often exaggerating it to the extreme. Over time, there were immoderate admirers of Origen who insisted on his incorrect personal opinions. This was the source of Origenist controversy. They began with the condemnation of Origen by Theophilus of Alexandria in 399 and ended in the era of Justinian. The latter issued a decree in 543 in which he accused Origen of heresy, claiming that his teachings were more pagan, Manichaean, Arian than Christian. He also outlined Origen’s main misconceptions: 1) the pre-existence of souls; 2) the pre-existence of the soul of Christ; 3) Christ's redemption of angels; 4) denial of the unlimitedness of God; 5) denial of the eternity of hellish torment; 6) recognition of the luminaries as animate beings, etc. As a result of this accusation, Origen was condemned as a heretic at the local Council of Constantinople (543), his memory was anathematized and his writings were declared subject to destruction. Origen was also condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council that followed 10 years later. The Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils also anathematized Origen. (See: Act 18 of the Sixth and Act 7 of the Seventh Ecumenical Councils).

Origen rendered considerable services to the Church in the field of theology. This explains his long-lasting influence in the East. The great fathers - Saints Gregory the Wonderworker, Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa treated Origen's works with respect. Even his opponents (for example, Methodius of Patara) used arguments and provisions borrowed from him and for the most part depended on him. And in subsequent times Origen was not forgotten.

Christian communities of the first centuries

To fully appreciate the feat of the holy fathers, you need to go back 1700 years, to the first centuries of Christianity - it was during that period that most of the saints lived, whom the Church classifies as teachers of the Church.

The Church then rested on tradition and the reverent memory of the Apostles, who, after the ascension of Christ, wandered the earth, gathered communities and passed on to them the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Sometimes these were communities in the literal sense: when people united in communes, they had everything in common and were all, in the full sense, brothers and sisters in Christ...

Twelve Apostles. Christian communities of the first centuries treasured their words and instructions especially carefully.

Apparently, there was no liturgical charter (that is, an approved and uniform course of services for all). And the services themselves were not some kind of event abstracted from everyday life, but a meeting of spiritual like-minded people. Every Sunday or on other significant days, people of the community met, prayed to Christ, prayed for everyone and everything, read the Holy Scriptures, sang prayers, and at the end received communion. Everyone in the community was united in the desire to be with Christ. Everyone lived from Sunday to Sunday, from Communion to Communion.

In that Church life, perhaps, there was not the structure that we are accustomed to now, but there was something else that saints and priests often set as an example - Church life is alive and devoid of any formality. Everything external was a complete reflection of the internal, and everything internal was the desire to be with Christ and find life in Eternity.

Why are priests called fathers?

Roman Makhankov

In the Gospel, addressing the apostles, Christ actually utters the words: “... Do not be called teachers, for you have one Teacher - Christ, yet you are brothers; And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven; and do not be called instructors, for you have only one instructor—Christ” (Matthew 23:8–10). This commandment is remarkable because it... has never been fulfilled by Christians! Since the emergence of the Church, priests have been called “fathers” and “mentors.” Outside the temple, for example, in schools, the same Christians, without hesitation, called and call their teachers teachers. And this is even more true when addressing one’s own father.

Already the apostles, to whom, in fact, the words of Christ were addressed, not only did not prohibit, but were the first to begin to call themselves fathers, mentors and teachers. The Apostle Paul in his letter to the Corinthian Christians writes: “... Although you have thousands of instructors in Christ, you have not many fathers; I have begotten you in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15). That is, he calls himself the spiritual father of the Corinthian Church. The Apostle James advises: “Not many become teachers” (James 3:1). And in general, in their epistles, the apostles very often used the address: “my children.” Only those who, in turn, were called “fathers” could address their listeners in this way.

How to explain this contradiction between the Gospel quotation and the behavior of the apostles? Either they went against the commandment of their Teacher, misunderstood and distorted His teaching - or Jesus, by not allowing Christians to be called “teachers” and “fathers,” still meant something other than a formal prohibition to use these words in addressing people.

If we accept the first option, we find ourselves in a dead end: all the Gospels were written by the apostles. This results in a logical contradiction: if they themselves were called “teachers” and “fathers,” then why was it necessary to leave this commandment of Christ in the Gospel at all? For the sake of exposing ourselves?

If we trust the disciples of Christ and, in the end, just common sense, then this commandment must be understood somehow differently. If so, what did Jesus mean?

It is necessary to read this phrase in context, without taking it out of the gospel narrative. After all, the Bible is not a set of quotes, but a complete and coherent text. Christ spoke words about fathers and teachers in Jerusalem a few days before the crucifixion. The city was especially crowded then, because Easter was approaching. Christ, knowing what would soon happen to Him, uses this time to deliver His last sermons.

However, even the religious teachers of the people of that time - the Pharisees and scribes - use the people who came to Jesus for their own purposes. Considering Christ to be a false prophet and false messiah, in front of a large number of witnesses they tried to discredit Him, to catch Him in some phrase that could later serve as a reason for accusation.

After another failed attempt by the teachers and fathers of the Israeli people to “catch Jesus in the word,” Christ addresses the people with a harsh accusatory speech against their religious mentors:

“The scribes and Pharisees sat on Moses’ seat. So whatsoever they command you to observe, observe and do; But do not act according to their deeds, for they speak and do not do. They tie up heavy and unbearable burdens and place them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves do not want to move them. Yet they do their deeds so that people can see them; They enlarge their storehouses and enlarge the garments of their garments; They also love to be presented at feasts and preside over synagogues and greetings in public assemblies, and for people to call them: “Teacher! teacher!" But do not call yourself teachers: for you have only one Teacher—Christ; after all, you are brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. And do not be called instructors: for you have only one Teacher—Christ.” (Gospel of Matthew, chapter 23, verses 2-10).

From the context it is clear that we are talking about things more important than word usage. Christ exposes here a certain state of a person who has taken upon himself teaching. Firstly, Israeli teachers themselves do not follow what they teach, and secondly, they suffer from vanity.

These gospel words apply, of course, not only to those whom Jesus directly denounced, but also to modern Christians and their mentors. What can a teacher’s vanity result in, why did Christ denounce him like that? Imagine, for example, a history teacher who declares during lectures: “I am the creator, ruler and mover of world history. Everything I tell you is something I created myself.” Probably, such a person will cause nothing but regret. After all, everyone understands that a teacher of any discipline is just an intermediary in the transfer of knowledge, and his teaching is a service. Be it history, mathematics or chemistry.

This is especially true for religious teachers. Their calling is to serve God. And a person who forgets this, according to Christianity, cannot be called a teacher. It is precisely this kind of teaching that Christ denounced. And in this sense, the followers of Christ really cannot and should not be called teachers.

If priests teach and preach without claiming the exclusivity of their mission, understanding that the teaching they preach is not their own, and they only lead to Christ, then, like the apostles, nothing prevents them from being called teachers and fathers.

But if you suddenly hear that someone, even a priest, calls himself “the new Christ”, “the source of revelation”, “the founder of the third testament” - or even simply declares the exclusivity of his spiritual experience as the only true one - he is not a true Christianity has nothing to do with it. Very often it is precisely such people, taking Christ’s commandment out of context, who interpret it as a prohibition on the use of words and strictly forbid calling themselves fathers, mentors and teachers. Usually in sects everyone calls each other “brothers.” What changes from this? Never mind! You can issue thousands of instructions prohibiting the word “father”, but at the same time become a real idol for your followers. At the same time, it is modest to be called “brother.” But what difference does it make to whom deceived people give their apartments and slavishly, fanatically obey - father X or brother Y?

Those who made the greatest contribution to the development of Christian doctrine are usually called fathers and teachers of the Church. But they never took upon themselves the title of saviors of mankind. The apostles compared themselves to farmers working in a field that belongs to God. Therefore, priests - spiritual fathers and teachers, are always very afraid of becoming Fathers and Teachers for their spiritual children, that is, instead of teaching Christ, teaching something of their own, and instead of leading a person to Christ, bringing them to themselves.

Notes:

Moses' seat is a metaphorical image of teaching. It was the prophet Moses on Mount Sinai who accepted from God and passed on His Law to the Israeli people. That is, he was the first teacher of Israel. Repositories are bandages or boxes with the words of God’s commandments, which the teachers of the Jewish people made on their foreheads and hands in accordance with the command of God Himself. Such bandages were called “storehouses” because they kept the people from forgetting God. *** Voskrilia - so that the Israeli people would not forget God, He ordered hyacinth tassels to be sewn to the edges of their clothes. Thus, the “voskriya of clothes” consisted of purple-blue tassels sewn to the edges of the outer clothing of the Jews. Both “repositories” and “vocals” were only supposed to remind the people of God. But the religious teachers of Israel turned them into symbols of their power.

magazine "Foma"

The feat of the holy fathers

Tradition, the spiritual zeal of the community and reverent memory did not protect the Church from the threat of heresies. “Heresy” in this case is not quite the right word, since most erroneous teachings about Christ arose at that time not out of intent and not out of a desire to split unity, but precisely because the Church had not yet formulated anything and all the truths were passed on from mouth to mouth. mouth.

It could be like this: a community or locality had its own elder - a bishop or just a priest. He could be extremely sensitive to the Christian tradition and, perhaps, be a real ascetic. But in his personal reasoning about this or that aspect of spiritual life he could be mistaken. His mistakes were listened to by others, and then also - with trepidation, as if they were the truth - they were passed on from mouth to mouth. And there was no one to correct it - because there was no telephone, newspapers or Internet. The interpretations became stronger and spread over ever larger territories.

And the more time passed since the death of the Apostles, and the more cultures and territories Christianity covered, the more the teachings of the communities could differ and the more “system-forming” issues it could concern. The most difficult differences were in the interpretation of the essence of the Trinity or Christ - since, from understanding this issue, the very structure of spiritual life and the reasons for many aspirations change. For example, some priests interpreted the essence of the Trinity in such a way that Christ is in the “literal” sense the son of God - that is, he was not with the Father from the beginning. Others interpreted the nature of Christ as primarily God, and calling human nature secondary. And so on.

From the 4th century, partly due to the fact that the Church ceased to be persecuted and became a state church in the Roman Empire (and partly due to the growing threats from heresies), church-wide Ecumenical Councils began to meet. At them, all controversial issues were brought to a single denominator, which were determined once and for all for all communities and all local Churches. And the works of the holy fathers either directly helped formulate doctrinal truths, or helped to clarify them as much as possible and thereby consolidate them for the future.

Preface to the first edition

“Dear reader, I am turning to you in the hope that you believe in God, feel His breath and hear His voice speaking in your soul. And if my hope is not deceived, let us think together about the thoughts I have written down...” [1] - this is how Lev Platonovich Karsavin’s first work on a theological topic begins. This reverent call to “his” reader sounds like a hidden tuning fork in his later works. For those who do not want to hear him, much of the thinker’s work remains closed and incomprehensible.

The future philosopher was born in 1882 in St. Petersburg in the family of the Mariinsky Theater dancer Platon Konstantinovich Karsavin. The Russian ballet star, world-famous Tamara Karsavina was the philosopher’s sister. But Lev, who had been burdened by a theatrical environment since childhood, was closer to his mother: she was prone to serious reading, kept French notebooks of her “Thoughts and Sayings” and revered the memory of her cousin, the founder of Slavophilism A.S. Khomyakova. This glorious relationship undoubtedly had an influence on the formation of the views of the later outstanding representative of the Russian Silver Age.

Having graduated from high school with a gold medal, then from the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University, Karsavin chose the history of religiosity in Italy and France in the Middle Ages as his area of ​​scientific interest. Then, in 1904, while still a student, he got married. His printed works of this period are devoted to the history of the end of the Roman Empire. After graduating from university, having received a two-year business trip abroad, he studied in depth in libraries and archives in Europe. The results of these studies were reflected in his fundamental works “Essays on religious life in Italy of the 12th–13th centuries” (1912) and “Fundamentals of medieval religiosity in the 12th–13th centuries, mainly in Italy” (1915). The thinker's mind, prone to powerful system-forming synthesis, could not limit itself to the framework of descriptive historical science. Going beyond their limits is clearly noticeable already in his last monograph, which is more cultural than historical. Upon returning to his homeland L.P. Karsavin, partly motivated by financial constraints, continues to work very hard. So, in 1913, he simultaneously held the positions of private assistant professor at the Imperial St. Petersburg University, a teacher at the Higher (Bestuzhev) Women's Courses, at the Lesgaft Higher Courses, at the Psychoneurological Institute, at the IChO gymnasium, in addition, he served as treasurer of the Historical Society under St. -Petersburg University. At the same time, he published articles in numerous magazines (“Bulletin of Europe”, “Voice of the Past”, “Scientific-Historical Journal”, “Church Bulletin”, “Historical Review”, etc.), wrote a series of articles in the New Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron and finally, he is working on his doctoral dissertation “Fundamentals of Medieval Religiosity.”

The events of 1917 introduced significant complications into the established rhythm of the thinker’s life, but scientific studies did not stop. At this time, he actively participated in the re-creation of the philosophical society at St. Petersburg University, which in the first years after the revolution served as a kind of “ecological niche” for religious philosophers, he became one of the organizers of this society, the publishing house “Academia”, which was later known for its scientific integrity; Member of the editorial board of the publishing house "Science and School". This period also saw L.P.’s personal renewal. Karsavina. In the muddy post-revolutionary stream, the most painful thing, according to the philosopher, was the persecution of the Christian Church launched by the new authorities. However, the power of God is made perfect in weakness, and the Church emerged from these trials cleansed of all that was superficial and dead, having acquired even stronger boldness before God in prayer for her children through the blood of the new martyrs. Karsavin quickly responded to these changes in the position of the Church. If earlier, while generally agreeing with the foundations of the Christian worldview, he considered himself not bound by them, now spiritual catharsis occurs in him, and from now on all his further work turns out to be inextricably fused with the religious theme. From this time on, the publication of Karsavin’s serious philosophical works began. At first they are predominantly historiosophical in nature. These include “Catholicism” (1918), “Introduction to History” (1920), “East, West and the Russian Idea” (1922). At the same time, philosophical reflections themselves occupy an increasing place in his work (“The Depths of Satan” (1922), “On Good and Evil” (1922), “On Freedom” (1922), “Earthly and Mountain Sophia” (1922), “Nodes Petropolitanae" (1922).

However, the contribution of L.P. Karsavin's contribution to the treasury of Russian thought still remains unappreciated. In 1922, he, along with a group of famous scientists and cultural figures, was expelled from Soviet Russia, which made it impossible for the Russian reader to get acquainted with his subsequent works. During the years of emigration, which were difficult in many respects, the philosopher’s articles were published in Russian, German, Italian and Czech. Foreign language studies, according to the author’s plan, were intended to acquaint foreign readers with the problems and content of Russian religious life. Of the works in Russian during this period, the most significant are “Dialogues” (1923), “Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church” (1926) and the brilliant “Philosophy of History” (1923). At the same time, Karsavin’s rapprochement with Russian church circles took place. He meets with Metropolitan Evlogy. He himself, participating in church services, repeatedly gives sermons in Orthodox churches.

How hard the philosopher experienced his separation from his homeland can be judged by the following fact: in 1927 he received a prestigious invitation to work at Oxford, but, to the chagrin of his family, he did not accept it. But he immediately agreed to a similar invitation received the same year from the University of Lithuania. It seemed to him that there he would be closer to Russia. And, despite the family’s refusal to leave Paris, he travels to Kaunas alone.

The Lithuanian scientific community received him cordially. From this time until the start of the Second World War, a period of relative stability and calm began in Karsavin’s life. Taking advantage of this, the philosopher began writing in Lithuanian (he learned it in a year and a half) the fundamental “History of European Culture” in 6 volumes, on which he worked for about ten years. In parallel, they published the book “Περι αρχον. The Experience of Christian Metaphysics" (1928), the systematic philosophical work "On Personality" (1930), which has no analogues in the Russian tradition, and, finally, "Poem about Death" (1932), which the author himself considered his best work. Now his thought reaches its final form; it is tense and multifaceted, without much explanation or detail. This is a well-known difficulty for the reader in works of the Lithuanian period.

About the time of the German occupation L.P. Karsavin later in a letter to E.Ch. Skrzhinskaya writes: “...he did not succeed under the Germans, because he was against them. From the very first days, I was confident in the triumph of Russia and wanted to reunite with it.”[2] After the liberation of Lithuania in 1944, he was appointed director of the Vilnius Art Museum. Having left his studies at the university, he continues to lecture on the history of Western European art at the Art Institute.

Latest entries by L.P. Karsavin were made in a camp in the town of Abez, where he was imprisoned in 1951 and where the most significant fruit of his philosophical thoughts ripened, partly reflected in a dozen brilliant sketches, among which - how sublime his last inspiration! - a wreath of sonnets and a cycle of terzas, representing the completion of his religious philosophy. Here, being shackled by bodily bonds and at the same time enjoying the hitherto unattainable heights of spiritual freedom, the greatest Russian thinker Lev Platonovich Karsavin died in 1952.

* * *

From medieval studies to the philosophy of history, which is basically Christ-centric, and from it to religious ontology as a doctrine of the Absolute and the world - this is the path of creative evolution of L.P. Karsavina. Its result is an original religious and philosophical system, which, perhaps, can only be rivaled in depth and completeness in Russian philosophy at the beginning of the century by the system of S.L. Frank. The originality of the concept, however, does not erase the fact that Karsavin’s thought moves in line with a certain tradition, namely, in line with the metaphysics of unity, which has deep roots in history.

The initial ideas about what was later embodied in holistic concepts of unity go back to the philosophy of the Pre-Socratics, many of whom put forward ideas about the connectedness and kinship of all things. They formed the basis for the systematic development of the principle of unity, carried out in Platonism and Neoplatonism. It is worth noting that, according to Karsavin, it was Plato and Plotinus who gave the foundation to any historical philosophy in general, so that to this day the concept of a platonist is synonymous with the concept of a philosopher, and “the value of a philosophical system is measured by the degree of its Platonism” [3].

Further, the concept under consideration received significant development in Christian patristics, especially in the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Maximus the Confessor and in the so-called “Areopagitic Corpus”. The ideas of Christian Platonism had a significant influence on the development of medieval thought until the Renaissance. In the 15th century The Roman cardinal and thinker Nicholas of Cusa, who had a huge influence on the formation of the views of many Russian philosophers, turned to the development of the principle of unity.

In Russian philosophical thought, the problem of unity, one might say, became its main distinctive feature, appearing even among the Slavophiles (the doctrine of “conciliarity” by A.S. Khomyakov) and in Russian literature by F.I. Tyutcheva, A.K. Tolstoy and F.M. Dostoevsky, and explicitly in V.S. Solovyov, who by true unity understands such a way of organizing being, “in which the one exists not at the expense of everyone, or to the detriment of them, but for the benefit of everyone. False, negative unity suppresses or absorbs the elements entering into it, and thus itself turns out to be emptiness; true unity preserves and strengthens these elements, realizing in them as the fullness of being”[4]. This intuition permeates the speculations of the entire subsequent Russian tradition of unity, to which, following Solovyov, Prince E. Trubetskoy, Fr. S. Bulgakov, Fr. Pavel Florensky, S.L. Frank, partly N.O. Lossky and others.

Creativity of L.P. Karsavina completes the tradition of unity known to us. With him she entered into the mature form of her existence. In his metaphysics, all its basic principles are clearly visible, the same ones that were used implicitly by his predecessors take the form of verified definitions. However, like any bright individual, Karsavin goes beyond the tradition in which he works and sometimes enters into an argument with it. His worldview is distinguished by a number of peculiarities unique to him.

Turning to the legacy of the thinker, one should first of all realize that among all the representatives of the Russian tradition of unity, Karsavin was the first and, perhaps, the only one who consciously built his philosophy on the unshakable foundation of Christian dogma, striving not to reshape anything, to reverently accept everything and only carefully identify the bottomless the depths hidden in it. In his understanding of dogma there is neither the cold abstractness nor the arrogance of reason that characterizes V. Solovyov’s attitude towards it, nor the denial of the ultimate reality of the dogma of N. Berdyaev’s symbolism, nor the fideistic inclination of S. Frank to see in it the “extra-rational” truth of religion, completely inaccessible to thought.

Karsavin's sensitivity to the dogmatic basis of Christianity is rooted in his conviction that in the modern world, lost in godlessness, the task of true philosophy is to comprehend and revive those principles that carry the full power of the Christian idea. Christianity not only should not sacrifice its rationality, but, on the contrary, it alone is the only reasonable one, since it was through it that “the light of the world of reason arose,” which was only partially inherited by secularized humanistic thought.

Thus understood, the task of philosophy prompted Karsavin to write a work on the ways of the formation of Christian dogmatic consciousness, entitled “Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church.” The publication of this work proposed here is being carried out in the thinker’s homeland for the first time. Its only Parisian edition was published in 1926 in a small edition and, quickly distributed to private emigrant libraries, became a bibliographic rarity.

Despite the general religious orientation of L.P.’s philosophy. Karsavin, this work on patristics falls out of the entire context of his work. It was intended as a seminary textbook. Hence the brevity of the presentation of material that is complex in content, the absence of reference to the sources (which Karsavin knew perfectly well), unthinkable in scientific historical research, and the numerous quotations used in the book, and the emphasized structure of the text. In addition, in “The Holy Fathers...” you cannot find the author’s own philosophical constructs, which are the basis of his other works.

However, the philosopher implicitly pursues some of his favorite topics here. Thus, the ideological core around which the presentation of the teachings of the fathers of the first centuries of Christianity unfolds is Karsavin’s idea that knowledge should not be opposed to faith, just as truth is not opposed to God. Reason can be opposed to feeling, but not to faith, in relation to which it is its own moment. Faith embraces the whole person, being equally actualized in both feeling and reason. From here it becomes clear what is being carried out in addition to “St. fathers..." and in his other works the idea that in religion "activity is inseparable from knowledge, and that in it everything down to the last iota is vital and every dogmatic error, no matter how insignificant it may seem, inevitably corresponds to a moral sin"[5] .

It cannot be said that L.P.’s point of view Karsavina on the relationship of faith and knowledge was generally accepted in theology. Thus, the largest Orthodox theologian of the 20th century. V.N. Lossky, who, by the way, was at one time a listener of L.P.’s Parisian lectures. Karsavina, in her work “Essay on the Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church,” argues that the God of philosophers is not the Living God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and that genuine theology does not need an alliance with philosophy. In contrast to the latter, where the goal is knowledge in itself, Christian theology as a certain body of knowledge is ultimately always only a means that must serve a goal that surpasses all knowledge. This ultimate goal, which the Eastern Fathers speak of, is union with God or deification (Theosis)[6].

However, Karsavin's position also has a venerable tradition (mostly Thomist) and strong argumentation behind it. The fact is that theology has as its content something already known, its subject is given in advance, open. However, this Revelation is a process that lasts over time. The fullness of truth, which the Church has possessed since time immemorial, is poured into finished forms of dogma when an urgent need arises. Historically, it is usually caused by the emergence of some new heresy and the problems it raises. It is at this stage of objectification of dogmas of faith that the human mind plays a significant role. Here, as the history of dogmatic disputes of the first centuries shows, it may be significant what philosophical language was spoken by representatives of one or another theological school, as was the case, for example, in the understanding of the question of the God-manhood of Jesus Christ by the Antiochian and Alexandrian schools. Karsavin in his work correctly shows how this process of dogmatic delimitation of truth from error took place and how the ancient style of thinking and terminology was transformed into forms acceptable for theology.

Speaking about the specifics of the work published here, it is necessary to say about the importance of the confessional position of the author writing about the history of the Church. Many consider a scientist’s confessionalism an obstacle to the objectivity of research. Meanwhile, without this element, research on church history turns into something amorphous and devoid of internal logic. In addition, there is nothing unscientific in the fact that the author takes the position of a certain confession. This may not at all prevent him from striving for the truth, for he adheres to his religion precisely because he sees in it the fullest expression of the truth.

As for L.P. Karsavin, he believed that the absolute truth was given to us in the teaching of the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. “It is given to us in an expression that can neither be supplemented, nor improved, nor changed. We have the latest and complete knowledge, but we are imperfect in our possession itself.”[7] It is not surprising, therefore, that the philosopher puts the provisions of the work “Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church” in direct connection with the foundations of Orthodox Tradition. The latter circumstance does not exclude the right and even the religious duty of a believing scientist to seek and doubt the process of theoretical knowledge of God[8]. Such doubt is legitimate until the testing mind, according to the word of the Gospel and Scripture, is replaced by a mind that is fruitless in matters of faith, an indifferent mind, and therefore does not penetrate into the innermost teachings of the Church.

It is difficult, however, for a philosopher to keep his freedom-loving mind within any boundaries set, even by himself. Therefore, in the text, which involves revealing the foundations of Orthodoxy in the works of the holy fathers, Karsavin in some places deviates somewhat from patristic tradition and leans toward the point of view of the latest Protestant theology. Traces of the latter's influence are noticeable in such details as Karsavin's denial that the famous treatise on the Holy Spirit was written by St. Basil the Great, meanwhile, in church historiography, based on Orthodox Tradition, his authorship is affirmed[10]; holding a controversial opinion that with St. John of Damascus ends “and to this day the only creative period in the development of Christian theology”[11], proceeding from the implicit identification of the whole and its part - theology and the process of forming dogmas, etc.

It can be assumed that the work “Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church” will probably seem unusual to the general reader in many ways, both in content and in the nature of the coverage of the material, far from the usual stereotypes of current public consciousness. Indeed, it recommends its author as a professional historian and independent thinker, but oriented towards values ​​that would seem to be old-fashioned and long lost by us as unnecessary. In this case, it is worth recalling that the fate of a real thinker is always the fate of his ideas, which begins long before his birth and does not end with the physical death of their creator. If there is something true and enduring in them, it does not sink into oblivion forever. And the publication of works by L.P., which has now begun, after many years of deaf silence. Karsavin is the best evidence of the authenticity of his philosophical insights and their importance for our world yearning for truth.

S. V. Mosolova

Why do we call the life of the holy fathers a feat?

They were pioneers. Navigating heroes and scientists who made great discoveries dealt with the visible world. The Holy Fathers wrote about invisible things. And through the Grace of the Holy Spirit, depths and such spiritual laws and truths were revealed to them that can only be revealed to a person through an exclusively holy life.

Mariners had a responsibility to themselves and their sailors. And the holy fathers determined the lives of millions of souls - and this responsibility is disproportionately great. That is why the Church considers their creations a feat.

Icon of the Holy Fathers of the Church.

Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council. Icons and paintings

The earliest surviving images of the Ecumenical Councils are the mosaics of the central nave of the Basilica of the Nativity in Bethlehem (680-724). The scenes are symbolic in nature - devoid of any figurative images. On complex architectural backgrounds in the form of arcades, culminating in turrets and domes, thrones with the Gospels are depicted under the central arches, texts of cathedral decrees and crosses are placed above. Each image of the Ecumenical Council is separated from the other by a floral ornament. The Seven Ecumenical Councils are depicted in the narthex of the cathedral of the Gelati Monastery (Georgia), 1125-1130. All scenes are uniform: the emperor is on the throne in the center, bishops are sitting on the sides, the rest of the Council participants are standing below, heretics are depicted on the right.

In Rus', the first image of the Ecumenical Councils were the frescoes of the Nativity Cathedral of the Ferapont Monastery (1502), painted by Dionysius. The iconography of the scenes was fully developed by the beginning of the 12th century. In the center on the throne is the emperor presiding over the Council. Bishops sit on the sides. Below in groups stand the participants of the Council, the heretics are depicted on the right. Texts containing information about the Council are usually placed above the scenes. The frescoes of Dionysius are compositionally similar, in the center of each is the emperor, as the initiator of the Council, around him are the saints - champions of Orthodoxy. Other well-known images of the Ecumenical Councils include the compositions of the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin (1643), on the porch of the Transfiguration Cathedral of the Moscow Novospassky Monastery (late 17th century).

First Ecumenical Council. Dionysius. Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary of the Ferapontov Monastery

Late icons contain many small details that illustrate in detail the legends about the Ecumenical Councils. On a Moscow icon from the mid-17th century (Tretyakov Gallery), for example, the tsar is depicted not only in the upper part of the composition, but also in the lower part, among those arguing; there is a book at his feet. The left side of the composition depicts the Infant Christ standing on a throne under the ciborium. On the opposite side, on the right, inside a small building, Arius is squatting; his insides fall out.

First Ecumenical Council. Minea July. Icon. Rus. Beginning of the 17th century Church-Archaeological Cabinet of the Moscow Theological Academy

On the icon of the First Ecumenical Council of the late 16th century (Rostov Kremlin Museum-Reserve), Emperor Constantine the Great is depicted in the center of the composition against the backdrop of a single-domed temple. He is on a throne, wearing a purple robe, wearing a crown; in his left hand he holds a scroll. To the right and left of the emperor are three bishops with Gospels in their hands. At the bottom of the icon, the emperor stands, greeting the participants of the Council; Saint Nicholas is the first to approach him, then, probably, Saint Athanasius of Alexandria; all the holy fathers are defenders of Orthodoxy in the icon with halos. The Arians stand behind the emperor; they wear white caps without halos. Arius himself is depicted in the lower right corner of the icon: “his womb spilled over” - as the iconographic original of the late 16th century explains.

First Ecumenical Council. Second half of the 16th century. State Museum-Reserve "Rostov Kremlin", Rostov

A characteristic feature of the icon is the Vision of Peter of Alexandria depicted at the bottom left. The saint kneels in prayer against the backdrop of the throne, and the Savior appears to him in torn vestments. The following is known from the life of the saint: when he was in prison awaiting execution, the Alexandrian bishops came to him with a request to lift the ban imposed on Arius, but the saint told them how, after the Liturgy, Christ appeared to him in the form of a 12-year-old youth in torn clothes and told about the future atrocities of Arius. According to patristic interpretations, the Savior’s clothes torn in two in this vision meant Arius’s denial of the inseparability of the Divine and human nature of Christ. Saint Peter was executed long before the Council (311), but his image on the icons of the First Council took root in iconography. The solution to the upper part of the icon, where St. Peter is depicted once again, is interesting: the remaining bishops are located in one row; Saint Peter is a little lower, as if his presence is felt at the Council, although he himself is not there.

Icon of the First Ecumenical Council. Novgorod, XVI century.

First Ecumenical Council. Stroganov icon-painting facial original. July 16 (fragment). Rus. End of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century. (published in Moscow in 1869). In 1868 it belonged to Count Sergei Grigorievich Stroganov

First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. IN AND. Surikov. 1876

Creations of the Holy Fathers

The Holy Fathers can be conditionally “divided” into two groups:

• The ascetic holy fathers - with their creations they described - each in their own way - the art of ascetic life. In essence, they explained and instructed how to achieve holiness and how to protect themselves in spiritual struggle. For example, Isaac the Syrian.
• The holy fathers-theologians , who with their creations finally formulated doctrinal truths and dogmas. We can say that we have finally defined the language of the Church. First of all, these are Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian.

And here are some of the books that are most often mentioned as the creations of the holy fathers:

• “The Words” of Isaac the Syrian - many saints called this book a reference book for a monk - all aspects of spiritual life, spiritual laws and spiritual struggle are so deeply, accurately and correctly described in it;
• “The Ladder” of John Climacus: describes the path to holiness in the form of a ladder, where each new “step” is a departure from the world;
• “Soulful teachings” by Abba Dorotheus;
• The works of John Cassian the Roman are his works on the organization of monastic life. They formed the basis of many monastic regulations now adopted;
• The works of John Chrysostom are records of his sermons. They are considered to be the pinnacle of the ability to talk about complex things in relatively simple and understandable language;
• The book “The Invisible Take,” apparently written by Nikodim Svyatogorets, is another ascetic reference book;
• Creations of Ephraim the Syrian;
• Works of Peter Damascene;
• Works of Gregory the Theologian;
• Works of Basil the Great;
• The works of Gregory Palamas, dedicated to the doctrine of Divine energies and the Uncreated Light. This is one of the holy fathers who lived in the Middle Ages;
• The works of Simeon the New Theologian, another saint who lived in the Middle Ages.

For the most part, these are very difficult books to understand. An exception, perhaps, are the works of John Chrysostom, which are recommended for everyone to read, and the “soulful teachings” of Abba Dorotheus. And the rest, for example, the “words” of Isaac the Syrian or the “Ladder” of John Climacus, are best read with the blessing of a priest. Firstly, they are written in complex language. But the main thing is that they touch on such deep and serious aspects of spiritual life that they can be simply dangerous for a beginner. It's like climbing Everest without any physical training or adaptation to high mountain air.

Some books even concern only monasticism and are not applicable to worldly life.

Church Fathers and Their Works

Holy Fathers: the conciliar mind of the Church, a living understanding of the Word of God, a connecting link between the ancient texts of Revelation and today's reality. They give a person of any era the opportunity to perceive and make his own the faith that the Incarnate God brought to earth 2 thousand years ago.

The teaching of St. Fathers of the Eastern Church - it is true: it is the teaching of the Holy Spirit. I beg you, hold on to this teaching! It will guide you to a blissful eternity...

St. Ignatiy Brianchaninov

Creations of St. fathers - a treasury of two thousand years of experience of the Church. Their biographies and writings contain answers to any questions of church life. There is no area of ​​doctrine that the fathers would not touch upon. They theologized and instructed, preached and consoled, composed liturgical texts and taught prayer, catechized the catechumens and denounced heretics. “There is no such problem of our confused times from which it is impossible to find a way out by carefully and humbly reading St. fathers,” writes Hieromonk Seraphim Rose.

Today we have free access to fatherly books. This great gift of God to our time should not go unclaimed.

The Science of Fathers

To a certain extent, a science called patrolology, which translated from Greek means “the word about the fathers,” can help to get to know the fathers (but does not replace reading primary sources). This is the science of the fathers and their creations. It is historical, as revealing the history of patristic writing, and theological, as giving an overview of patristic teaching.

The main subject of her attention is the holy fathers, and precisely those who left behind any monuments of church writing. At the same time, patrolology studies the life and writings of Christian authors who are not canonized, if their work influenced the development of church writing. They are usually called church writers and teachers, but not fathers. Whereas the Fathers of the Church can also be called church writers and teachers, since, undoubtedly, they are.

Who and why does the Church call “fathers”

In the Christian Church, since the time of the apostles, the title “father” has been adopted by outstanding spiritual leaders of believers (1 Cor. 4:15). According to the remark of Archbishop Philaret of Chernigov, one of the first Russian patrolologists, “they expressed that just as an ordinary son owes an ordinary father physical life, so a worthy student owes a worthy teacher the birth for a life worthy of a person, the formation of the highest powers of the soul...”

The Fathers of the Church are the mentors and teachers of Christ's Church. They are the chosen instruments of the Holy Spirit who instruct spiritual children in the revealed teaching and lead them to Christ, and therefore to salvation. The first fathers in this sense were St. the apostles, directly taught by the Lord Himself and under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit. Their teaching and instructions are an immutable law for the Church of Christ, and they themselves are called, unlike all other church leaders, messengers of Christ - apostles. The apostles are followed by the fathers themselves - the successors of the apostolic spirit.

The Fathers are distinguished by the Church itself from a number of other writers as persons who themselves assimilated and embodied Christ’s teaching in their lives and possessed the necessary properties to express it in their written works; they actively participated and continue to participate in the structure of the Church, in the establishment and dissemination of its teachings. To a certain extent, they are the culprits of the organization that the Church received, and the formulation of its teaching, in which it has reached our days, and therefore are rightly called the fathers of the Church. An essential characteristic of fathers is holiness of life. They are holy fathers.

Patristic tradition

The Holy Fathers are nothing more than the guardians of the Apostolic Tradition. All of them, like St. The apostles are only witnesses of the Truth - the God-man Christ. They tirelessly confess and preach it, they are “the all-golden lips of God the Word.”

St. Justin Popovich

Over time, after the Apostolic Tradition, the Tradition “properly paternal” appeared. It is understood as the writings of the fathers, which, although not dating back to apostolic antiquity, are nevertheless recognized as the truth of the Church. St. Athanasius the Great formulated three main conditions for the truth of the Father's Tradition: compliance with the Holy. Scripture; agreement with other fathers; good life and death in Christ by the author. If these conditions are met, the Church accepts this Tradition and recognizes for it the same dignity that belongs to the apostolic teaching.

The authority of St. fathers in the Orthodox Church is very high. "Listen to St. fathers as successors of St. apostles means listening to God Himself,” says St. Seraphim Sobolev. According to the blzh. Augustine, who departs “from the unanimous consent of the fathers, departs from the whole Church.” The consent of the fathers is due to the fact that they are all fellow members of the One Spirit.

Holy Fathers – Spirit Receivers and Spirit Bearers

In the Church, the best thinkers are St. fathers, for they think with the Holy Spirit.

St. Justin Popovich

On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles in the form of tongues of fire (Acts 2:1-47). Now it is poured out on believers in an invisible way through prayer, the sacred rites of the Church, especially through its Sacraments. Everyone receives the Spirit to the extent that they are able to receive and hold It. This measure is determined by faith and holiness of life. Therefore, only saints are true spirit-receivers and spirit-bearers. To them the Holy Spirit - the Spirit of wisdom and understanding - reveals the mysteries of God. They are the true and reliable interpreters of Divine Revelation.

Fathers and Divine Revelation

If the Word of Scripture is examined, then let it not be explained in any other way than as the luminaries and teachers of the Church have set forth in their writings...

From the Rules of the VI Ecumenical Council

The importance of following this rule for preserving the unity of faith and the Church is evidenced by St. Ambrose Optinsky. To the question: “Why does the doctrine of the Orthodox Church, planted by different apostles in different places and peoples, remain the same and unchanged for eighteen and a half centuries; The Lutheran teaching, taught by one person, was divided over the course of three centuries into more than seventy different parties - he answered: because the Catholic and Apostolic Church commands its children to understand the Holy Spirit. Scripture as...explained by God’s chosen men, purified from passions, God-bearing and Spirit-bearing...Luther allowed everyone...to interpret Scripture at their own discretion.”

Fathers and Ecumenical Councils

The Holy Fathers are recognized as the most reliable representatives of the Church in doctrine. The Ecumenical Councils, which met to affirm the true faith and overthrow heresy, always began with the reading of those patristic writings in which the issues to be considered were set out in particular detail. Relying on the patristic writings, the Council denounced heresy and pronounced a solemn confession of Orthodox teaching. Significant are the words that preceded the definition of the Council: “It has pleased the Holy Spirit and us...” - reflecting the “Theanthropic rule” of co-working between God and man.

The era of sainthood continues

To claim that St. there can be no more fathers means to claim that the Holy Spirit has left the Church.

Metropolitan Diokleian Callistus (Ware)

Orthodox patrolology claims that there are no time limits for holy fatherhood. Archbishop Philaret of Chernigov writes about it this way: “if any (limit) can be appointed, then only the one that ends the existence of the militant Church of Christ; There is no other limit and cannot be. The Holy Spirit always dwells in the Church... until the end of the world, the chosen instruments of the Spirit of God will appear in it for the needs of the Church.” Many examples confirm the truth of these words. Let's cite just two: St. Ignatius Brianchaninov (19th century, Russia) and St. Justin Popovich (20th century, Serbia) - remarkable ascetics: ascetics, writers, theologians; worthy representatives of St. recent fathers. Their works, written in full accordance with the teachings of St. fathers, is an integral part of the Holy Spirit. Traditions of the Universal Church. These fully apply to the words of St. Athanasius the Great: “Time makes no difference between our teachers - the oldest are not at all more important than the later: they are all equally fathers.”

The era of patrism continues and will last as long as the Church of Christ stands on earth and the Holy Spirit acts in it. In this Church - the Orthodox Church - it is preserved by the Holy Spirit through St. Fathers, the only way of salvation is the path of Christ, the apostles and St. fathers. This path is open to everyone. To follow it or not to follow it is a matter of personal choice and work of everyone.

Prepared by Lyudmila Kuznetsova

Patericon - what is it?

Separately, it is necessary to say about the Patericon - which can also be classified as patristic literature. These books—for example, the Great Patericon, the Palestinian Patericon, or “The Spiritual Meadow”—are a collection of short tales about the saints of the early Christian Church.

Sometimes it’s just one paragraph about some old man, sometimes it’s several stories about him. Some of the saints in these patericons are completely nameless, but all these stories are wonderful examples of holiness and Christian wisdom.

Some monasteries, including Russian ones, also have their own Patericon. For example, the patericon of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, which describes the lives of all the saints who shone in this monastery. And of course - the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, which contains the lives of hundreds of Kiev-Pechersk saints. Their lives spanned almost one century (!) and all their relics are now stored and open for worship in the caves of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery.

Fathers of the Six Councils

First Ecumenical Council

(MP3 file. Duration 11:49 min. Size 8.6 Mb)

In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit!

The first who began to address the word of teaching and instruction to the flock of Christ from the pulpit - this elevation in the church for readers, was St. John Chrysostom. Before him, that is, until the end of the 4th century, archpastors and pastors preached from the High Place in the altar, which was arranged like the steps of an amphitheater and was very high, so that the person sitting on it could be seen praying in the temple, and there was also an altar barrier was low. It took a lot of effort for the elderly and sick clergyman to climb the High Place after singing the Trisagion Song, and even now, in following the Divine Liturgy, the blessing of the High Place - the High Throne - is preserved - asking the Lord for strength and help to ascend it.

Today, from this pulpit - a rare element of decoration of modern Orthodox churches in our Fatherland, but consecrated by ancient tradition - with gratitude and warmth we remember those who repeatedly ascended to the pulpits and the High Place to preach, to defend and preserve the truth of the faith of Christ - let us remember the fathers six Ecumenical Councils.

A galaxy of approximately 1,500 men - archpastors and shepherds, immaculate, sober, chaste, dean, honest, hospitable, teaching - over the course of three centuries formulated and put into words what every person who calls himself a Christian should know, created the church doctrine, defined the dogmas of faith - “God-revealed truths that transcend reason, possessing unsearchable depth.”

We ask: why did so many people work, why did they engage in these complex and distracted matters? After all, there is Holy Scripture, in which we find the words of Christ the Savior, by which we are guided in our lives, awaiting salvation and the inheritance of eternal blessings. To show off your intelligence and eloquence? For vanity and pride?

No! The fathers of the Ecumenical Councils we remember did not work for the sake of glory or because of idleness. “Only the malice of heretics forces us to talk about what it would be better to remain silent,” said one of them, St. Hilary of Pictavia.

“Beware of those who cause divisions and temptations, contrary to the teaching you have learned, and turn away from them; for such people serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and with flattery and eloquence they deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rom. 16: 17–18), - with these words the Apostle Paul warns the Roman Christians of the 1st century. But how often do we forget this and succumb to temptation, including the temptation of flattering false teaching and lies.

Heresy is most often the fruit of a proud heart and an arrogant mind

“They do not gather figs from thistles” (cf. Matt. 7:16), and nothing good or good can grow from an unclean heart. And if we look at the complex, contradictory period in the life of the Church, which is called the era of the Ecumenical Councils, we will be convinced that heresy is most often the fruit of a proud heart and an arrogant mind.

A strict ascetic and famous confessor, who had more than 200 spiritual daughters, the Alexandrian presbyter Arius set himself the task of uniting Christianity and paganism. Maddened that the second Hypostasis of the Most Holy Trinity - Christ the Savior - was created by God the Father, he hardly tried to seduce the still fragile minds of Christians, who had recently been pagans; on the contrary, his desire was essentially good - to make it easier for the pagans to understand the faith of Christ. Just as Geb and Nut give birth to the good Osiris, just as Apollo appears from Zeus and Leto, so, according to Arius, God the Father creates God the Son. The terrible distortion of the teaching about the Most Holy Trinity and about the eternal existence of each of Her Three Persons should have, in the opinion of the heresiarchal presbyter, become the most effective missionary technique, but it became a willful violation of the Eternal Truth and blasphemy. Many, many residents of Alexandria and Egypt were seduced by the preaching of Arius, this beautiful, gifted poet, who set out his heresy in the form of the poem “Thalia” and rhapsodic songs. The common people were delighted: with a pleasant tune and melodious, these songs were written especially for sailors, for millers, for travelers and became very popular and loved. But we remember that the expression “Vox populi vox Dei” (“The voice of the people is the voice of God”) is erroneous, “for the fickleness of the crowd always borders on madness.”

Nestorius, archbishop of the capital city of the great empire of Constantinople, originally from the remote Syrian city of Caesarea Germanicea on the Euphrates, a man of humble origin, small in stature, with large expressive eyes and light reddish hair, was obsessed with enormous ambition and pride. Can any of us, disciples of Christ, say, turning to the ruler, as Nestorius turned to the emperor: “Give me a land cleared of heresies, and for that I will give you heaven; help me defeat the heretics, and I will help you in the fight against your earthly enemies”? We hope for God's mercy on ourselves and do not even dare to think that it is in our power to give heaven to someone. If Arius saw himself as a great preacher and missionary, then Nestorius took upon himself the responsibilities of the most zealous fighter against evil teachings and heresies. As a result, he himself became the founder of a heresy that denies the Divine Essence of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The desire for absolute power and dominance over his neighbors, namely to be the first among all eastern bishops, prompted the Archbishop of Alexandria Dioscorus to support the heresy of Archimandrite Eutychus, who rejected human nature in the Lord Jesus Christ. Bearing the title of the Thirteenth Apostle and Judge of the Universe, he came to the city of Ephesus to investigate the evil teaching of the Monophysites, but instead condemned the righteous Saint Flavian of Constantinople at a false council. Seeing that he was losing in the struggle for power, he broke off communication not only with the Universal Church as an institution, but also with the True Faith and dragged almost all of Egypt and Syria into heresy.

Cowardly and afraid to contradict the emperor, Patriarchs Sergius of Constantinople, Cyrus of Alexandria, Pope Honorius, justifying their cowardice and servility with the high goal of serving the fatherland and the people, torn apart by Monophysitism and Nestorianism, began to falsely teach about the single will of the Savior. But their heretical compromise did not bring any benefit, and their memory perished noisily.

We believe, dear brothers and sisters, that there is only one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and its body cannot be cut without ceasing to live. Heretics and schismatics are like infected members who have fallen away from this Body and are in a state of spiritual death, without thereby violating the unity and integrity of the Holy Church.

Let's look around and see what is happening now with these ancient heresies. Once a third of Alexandria and Egypt sang “Thalia” Aria, the barbarian tribes of the Goths, Vandals, and Burgundians were Arians. The dioceses of the Nestorian Church of the East stretched from Mesopotamia to China. The Monophysite churches of Syria, Egypt, Armenia and Ethiopia have long lost both interest and ability for theological polemics in defending the doctrines of Eutychus and Dioscorus, and have become only closed national churches for Christian peoples surrounded by a hostile Muslim world.

We know that “evil men and deceivers will always abound in evil, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13), and as long as sin lives in people, new heresies will appear. But they “will not have much time; for their foolishness will be revealed to everyone” (2 Tim. 3:9), the Apostle Paul consoles us. St. Gregory the Theologian echoes him: “There is no harm if the heretics have warmed up and in the spring they dare to crawl out of their holes... I know very well that they will hiss for a short time, then they will hide, overthrown by both truth and time; and the sooner, with greater hope, we present everything to God.”

Instead of unnecessary disputes with heretics, let us work on studying our faith and the history of the Holy Church

So you and I, dear brothers and sisters, will leave everything to God, and He Himself, with truth and time, will destroy all the madness of those who doubt the faith of Christ. We ourselves will refrain from adding even under the plausible pretext of sinful oil to the fire of our anger, irritation, condemnation and slander, which first burns against erring heretics, and then will burn our neighbors and will ultimately turn for ourselves into the endless fire of hellish flames . Instead of unnecessary disputes with heretics (and we remember that “the heretic, after the first and second admonition, turn away.” - Titus 3: 10), let us work on studying our faith and the history of the Holy Church, so that the names of Saints Athanasius the Great, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory the Theologian, Maximus the Confessor, Mina of Constantinople and other fathers of the six Ecumenical Councils have become near and dear to us.

Today, on the day of remembrance of these true archpastors and shepherds, in order to keep ourselves from extremes and for spiritual edification, let us not forget the simple and wise word of St. Silouan of Athos: “The Holy Spirit, it is said, has appointed bishops in the Church to shepherd the flock of the Lord; and if people understood this, they would love the shepherds with great love and their souls would rejoice at the sight of the shepherd. He who carries within himself the grace of the Holy Spirit knows what I am talking about. The Lord loves them for their humility and love for the people. They are engaged in great work and feat, and for this they are enriched by the mind of the saints, whom they imitate in their lives. Brothers, let us remain in obedience to our shepherds, and then there will be common peace, and the Lord will be with us all by the Holy Spirit.”

Amen.

Saint Anthony - founder of monasticism

Saint Anthony lived in the 3rd–4th centuries in Egypt. He is called the founder of hermitage. Although, considering him exactly the “founder” is not entirely correct. Firstly, because many Christian communities of that time were essentially monasteries - with strict asceticism and reverence for virgin life. Secondly, because Saint Anthony was far from the first who left “from the world” into the desert. For example, the spiritual mentor of Anthony the Great was St. Paul of Thebes - who spent 90 of his 113 years in solitude.

However, Anthony the Great was the first to incite others to imitate his feat. He gathered around him a large number of like-minded people, and thanks to him, hermitage went from being an exceptional phenomenon to becoming, to some extent, widespread and outwardly formed. After him, monasticism was no longer just a way of life, but also a clearly defined external choice - leaving the world.

By the way, the founder of Russian monasticism also bore the name Anthony - this is the Venerable Anthony of Pechersk, who lived in the 10th–11th centuries.

The Early Church Fathers fall into three main categories: Apostolic, Pre-Nicene, and Post-Nicene. Apostolic fathers, such as Clement of Rome, were contemporaries of the apostles and, probably, their disciples, continuing the traditions and teachings of the apostles themselves. Linus, mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, became bishop of Rome after the death of Peter, and Clement took over the leadership of the church from Linus. Both Linus and Clement of Rome are therefore considered apostolic fathers. However, apparently, the works of Linus have not survived, while many of the works of Clement of Rome have reached us. The Apostolic Fathers largely faded from the scene by the beginning of the second century, with the exception of those few who may have been disciples of John, such as Polycarp. Traditions say that the Apostle John died in Ephesus around 98 AD.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers were those who came after the Apostolic Fathers and led the Church until the Council of Nicaea in 325. Figures such as Irenaeus, Ignatius and Justin the Philosopher are the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

The post-Nicene Church Fathers are those who came after the Council of Nicaea. These are such famous figures as Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, who is often called the father of the [Roman Catholic] Church because of his great work on the doctrines of the Church; Chrysostom, who was named for his outstanding oratory skills, and Eusebius, who wrote the history of the Church from the birth of Jesus to 324 AD, one year before the Council of Nicaea. He enters the post-Nicene era, as he wrote his history only after the Council of Nicaea. Other post-Nicene fathers included Jerome, who translated the Greek New Testament into Latin (the Vulgate), and Ambrose, who was largely responsible for the conversion of Emperor Constantine to Christianity.

So what did the early church fathers believe? The Apostolic Fathers were very concerned that the proclamation of the Gospel should be consistent with the apostolic message. They were not interested in formulating theological doctrines because the Gospel they heard from the apostles was sufficient for them. The Apostolic Fathers were as zealous as the Apostles themselves in rooting out and exposing the false doctrines that arose in the Early Church. The purity of the message was preserved by the desire of the apostolic fathers to remain faithful to the Gospel as taught to them by the apostles.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers also tried to remain faithful to the Gospel, but they had additional concerns. Several false writings arose that claimed the same weight as the accepted writings of Paul, Peter, and Luke. The reason for these false documents was obvious. If the Body of Christ is persuaded to accept a false document, then the lies will permeate it. Therefore, the pre-Nicene fathers spent a lot of time defending the Christian faith against false doctrines - this led to the beginning of the formation of established church doctrines.

The post-Nicene fathers were on a mission to defend the Gospel against all sorts of heresies, so they became more and more interested in methods of defending the Gospel and less in communicating the Gospel in a true and pure form. Thus they began to depart from the purity that had been the hallmark of the apostolic fathers. It was an age of theologians and endless discussions on all sorts of topics.

The Early Church Fathers are our example of what it means to follow Christ and defend the truth. None of them were perfect, just as none of us are. Some of the early ones followed beliefs that most Christians today consider wrong. What ultimately became Roman Catholic theology had its roots in the writings of the post-Nicene fathers. Although we can gain knowledge and understanding by studying the writings of the Early Church Fathers, ultimately our faith must be based on the Word of God and not on the writings of early Christian leaders. The Word of God alone is the infallible guide for faith and practice.