Talk:Cappadocian Fathers

The Cappadocian Fathers intro
The opening section is rather silly in suggesting that Macrina should be added as an additional "Cappadocian" to the originally noted Three Cappadocian Fathers. To say so is to dilute the Cappadocian Fathers' contributions to orthodox Christianity. I do not mean to belittle in any way St. Macrina the Younger's contribution to Christian history as she is noted as a saint in and of itself. However the Cappadocian Fathers are particularly noted for their documented defence of the Nicene creed and its application towards the Holy Spirit, notably the hypostatic union of one God in Three persons that are co-equal, co-eternal, and of one substance - consubstancial. That is what they are noted for historically! Not to mention, Gregory of Naziansus and Basil's brother Gregory of Nyssa's defence during the Second Eccumenical Counsil at Constantinopal which refined the Nicene Creed (officially named the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed) additions with regards to the Holy Spirit, which a grand majority of Christians profess each and every week to this day. Yes perhaps modern scholarship has noted Macrina's contribution - however it has also provided a great appreciation for Basil's entire family - His grandfather was a martyr, his grandmother St. Macrina the Elder, His father St. Basil the Elder, his mother St. Emmelia, as well as 3 other siblings that are recognized saints (in addition to Macrina the Younger herself) St. Peter of Sebaste, St. Naucratius, the already mentioned St. Gregory of Nyssa  - and not to mention, the  venerated blessed Theosebia...why not just add the entire family to the "Cappadocians". No, though they are greatly respected - hence they are a noted holy family of saintly persons. Though they may have all played a substantial role in the development of Christian doctrine, without personal documentation or presence in the Counsel which defined such doctrine, they should  not be directly considered among the "Cappadocian" Fathers as they did not directly contribute to the orthodox Christian understanding and doctrine of God - specifically the treatise regarding the Holy Trinity.

I do not believe Wikipedia can overhaul over a millennium of Christian tradition, based on the notions of a single contemporary author Jaroslav Pelikan. To say such a thing, base on such a notion -even if authentic, but without a single recognition from a organized Christian tradition is quite precipitous. ESPECIALLY when Jaroslav Pelikan can not cite any primary resources, but instead cites the work of Jaques Paul Migne: Patrologiae cursus competus; a work written in the mid 1800's over 1300 years from the authenticated and accepted writings of the Cappadocian Fathers.Particularly Gregory of Nyssa, which Pelikan attempts  to refer to, yet such a notion is not found in any of Gregory of Nissa's substantiated and verified writings.

Thank you. MicaelTru (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's one author's opinion and doesn't seem to be supported by most historians or theologians. While it might deserve a mention somewhere else in the article it doesn't belong in the lead, so I'm going to remove it. Majoreditor (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
Peter is not one of the Great Cappadocian Fathers. Rather, Gregory of Nazianzus makes up the third part of the triad. See Gonzales, "A History of Christian Thought" Volume 1, p 303.

Naucratius Eldest?
As the intro notes, Naucratius is counted as the oldest in this article, and the second oldest on his Wikipedia page. I know the source for the second is Gregory of Nyssa, his brother. What is the source for the claim here that he's the oldest?

The issue could be resolved (if there are two equally reliable sources) by noting the discrepancy at both places (source X says he's oldest, while his brother Gregory Nyssa says he's second oldest).Cornelius (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Error in 'Theological Contributions'?
The section currently states that: [...] argued Basil of Caesarea, in a parallel drawn from Platonism: any three human beings are each individual persons and all share a common universal, their humanity.

This links the user to the Platonism page, yet no source is provided for this assertion that Basil's theology, or indeed this quotation, has anything to do with Platonism. I think this is a mistake; Basil's analogy here is analogous rather to Aristotelian 1st and 2nd order ousia/essence/nature, as his usage of humans as an analogy of the Trinity relies on each human having a real individuality (1st order nature) and a full participation in their 2nd order nature or "species", namely, humanity. If - somehow - Basil was here alluding to Platonism, the human would be an imperfect participant in the ousia "Humanity", and thus by analogy, the Hypostases of the Trinity would be imperfect artifacts of the form of the Godhead. This is a ludicrous claim to put in Basil's mouth, and is totally alien to Basil C.'s theology and the wider theology of the Cappadocians. It was Eunomius, not the Cappadocians, who relied upon a Platonist Metaphysic. Jauserr (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)