Talk:Patristics

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Christianity: Theology Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Theology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Patristic consensus

It would be interesting if we could have a entry on the specialized topic of patristic consensus, which is a method to determining orthodox doctrine in the writings of the Church Fathers. ADM (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early Church Saints

In the article page, Patrology is introduced as a study of the early church founders or leaders. This I disagree with as Patrology is the Study of Modern and Early Church Saints and particulary the doctors of the church including saint Theresa of Avila and saint Theresa of Lisieux.

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relations with Judaism

This section should be either revised or removed entirely. If it is to be maintained, then its misinformation concerning St. John Chrysostom should surely be amended. The passage I reference :

"Saint John Chrysostom used Jesus' words in Luke 19:27 to call for the murder of Jews in Chrysostoms Eight Homilies Against the Jews:

'The Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: “Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer.” … Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them.'”

This is a terrible misrepresentation of what St. John believed/wrote. While no friend of Judaism, he is certainly not called for murder. Nowhere does St. John say that Jews are "fit for the slaughter and therefore we must kill them", no, he states simply that "they are fit for the slaughter" and later "This is why Christ said: 'But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them."

The later part is reference to a well known parable in St. Luke's Gospel. This must not be understood as call for murder, but rather a decree that death and judgment would come upon the Jews at the Final Judgment. If you want to leave this passage, that is fine, but the way it is presented is very deceptive and the description should be changed at the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.198.12.51 (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that St. Augustine called for allowing Jews to live for the sake of suffering needs a citation.

I think the passage, even in the now-current amended form is off topic and so should be either moved or removed:

The article is about the field of patristics--which certainly is not antisemitic itself nor principally concerned with antisemitism (antisemitism would be but one of many topics patristics would consider in studying the fathers)--, it is NOT directly about the Church Fathers (their thoughts, opinions, lives, etc.).

Not only does the section not claim to speak about the topic of the article, but as it stands it doesn't even claim to speak about the fathers in general or even a large set of them; it only speaks about two of them (so it doesn't belong on the page for Church Fathers either).

If someone wants to retain this material, it seems like it should be divided up between the pages for the individual fathers mentioned. It is worth noting, however, that the controversies here mentioned are already treated in their own sections on the pages for the relevant fathers: Chrysostom, and Augustine. Chrysostom's Sermons against the Jews (and their historical influence) are also mentioned in Church Fathers. Wmdiem (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Patrologia

The Patrologia is a stub-length article that seems to be a misguided attempt to start an article on patristics under another title. However, it might instead be a reasonable (if still poorly-executed) article about the specific works called "Patrologia" that it mentions. Can anyone see if it has any merit alone or anything worth merging here? -- Perey (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obstacles to 21st century understanding

I think the recent change in format of the four items from Alister McGrath's work from sentence format to list format is fine. However, even before that change was made, I thought the lack of grammatical consistency in the four items makes the list poorly written. The first item is a complete sentence. The second and third items are short phrases. The fourth item is a phrase followed by a long re-phrasing. The phrases, particularly the second and third ones, are too sparse to be helpful to the average reader. Perhaps someone who has access to McGrath's work could fill out these items so that they make a bit more sense. CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Patristics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrologia section

I'm struggling to understand Patristics § Patrology vs. patristics. Specifically this text:

Josef Fessler, for instance, defines patrologia as the science which provides all that is necessary for the using of the works of the Fathers, dealing, therefore, with their authority, the criteria for judging their genuineness, the difficulties to be met within them, and the rules for their use. But Fessler's own Institutiones Patrologiae has a larger range, as have similar works entitled Patrologies, for example, that of Otto Bardenhewer (tr. Shahan, Freiburg, 1908).

There seems to be an error here. Fessler seems to be arguing for an expansive definition of "patrologia", and a more narrow definition of "patristics". The use of "But" in the phrase But Fessler's own Institutiones Patrologiae has a larger range seems to be intended to indicate that Fessler was inconsistent in his usage of these terms. However, if Fessler was arguing for "patrologia" to be a broad term, how is it contradictory for his work on patrologia to have a broad range? I'm mostly concerned about accuracy and clarity, although I should also note that this statement seems to be WP:OR. Daask (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Didache part of patristic writing?

I was trying to remember the name of the Didache. (I found it in the article on Apostolic Fathers.) The Didache is one of the earliest Christian writings that we have -- maybe the earliest -- that was not included in the canons, but was not deemed heretical in most (if not all) of Chalcedonian Christianity. I request that someone who knows more about this, to edit the article on Patristics to add at least a sentence to answer these questions: Is the Didache part of patristic writing? More broadly, are Ancient church orders patristic writings? This improvement would need a citation, which could be some scholarly textbook. Oaklandguy (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]