PADRI BIANCHI: V. MISSIONARI D'AFRICA.
FATHERS OF THE CHURCH. – Ancient ecclesiastical writers distinguished by orthodox doctrine and holiness of life, and recognized by the Church as witnesses to divine tradition.
I. NOTION
The name Fathers is of Eastern origin. The ancient peoples of the East, in fact, honored teachers with this appellation, considering them the authors of the intellectual life originating from their instruction. In this sense, the disciples of the prophetic schools were called filii prophetarum, and their teacher was called pater (I Reg. 10, 12; I Sam. 40, 35); s. Paolo calls himself the “father” of the newly converted (I Cor. 4, 15).In the primitive Church, this name designated the bishops, who, precisely because they were ministers of the Sacraments and custodians of the Church’s doctrinal heritage, were regarded as generators of that life in Christ of which s. Paolo speaks in the passage cited (cf. Martyrium Polycarpi, 12, 2; Acta Cypriani, 3, 3). From the fourth century onward, when the primitive bishops began to be regarded as authoritative witnesses to tradition and judges in dogmatic controversies, doctrinal authority was valued above all, and the name Fathers became restricted to the assertors of the faith who had left written testimony. Soon, however, this title was extended also to non-bishops through the action of s. Agostino, who cited his contemporary s. Girolamo, a simple priest, as a witness to Catholic teaching concerning original sin (Contra Jul., I, 34; II, 36). Yet not all ecclesiastical writers were qualified to bear witness to the Church’s faith, since some had fallen into serious errors. The ancient ecclesiastical writers were therefore divided into two categories: those recognized by the Church as witnesses to the faith, and those who were not. The first example of this distinction is found in the sixth-century decretal De libris recipiendis et non recipiendis, attributed to Pope Gelasius and consequently constituting the oldest catalogue of Christian writers recognized as Fathers of the Church.
Taking into account the various determinations to which this appellation was subject, four elements enter into its concept: a) orthodox doctrine: as guardians of the tradition received from their predecessors, they must transmit it unaltered to succeeding generations; this orthodoxy is understood in the sense of faithful communion in doctrine with the Church, not as total immunity from even merely material errors: the example of s. Cipriano applies to all; b) holiness of life: as teachers, the Fathers of the Church must exhibit the Christian virtues to a high degree, not merely preaching them but practicing them; this characteristic constitutes a guarantee and an elevation of orthodoxy itself; c) approval by the Church: just as the Church can define the canon of Scripture, so can it determine the authentic witnesses to Tradition; explicit approval is not, however, necessary; implicit approval is sufficient, such as might be found, for example, in a council’s citation of a Father; d) antiquity: on this point there was some fluctuation, and for a considerable time medieval writers from the period preceding scholasticism were also classified among the Fathers of the Church. Greater strictness then prevailed, and today the patristic age is commonly considered to end, in the West, with the death of s. Isidoro di Siviglia (636), and in the East with that of s. Giovanni Damasceno (ca. 750).
In practice, the name Fathers is sometimes extended, in a broad sense, to certain writers of the early period who were not saints, or who, at some point in their literary production, were not orthodox, such as, for example, Certulliano, Origenè, and Eusebio di Cesarea. The eminent services rendered by such men for other reasons explain these exceptions: the title “ecclesiastical writers” is more properly suited to them. The category of the Fathers of the Church coincides only in part with that Doctors of the Church (v.), for whom, although the qualification of antiquity is not necessary, eminens eruditio and explicit recognition by the Church are required.
II. AUTHORITY
The importance of the Fathers of the Church is not merely literary or historical in nature, but is based above all on their doctrine, drawn from Tradition as a source of faith. This derives from the very close connection they had with the infallible teaching office of the Church. For the most part they were bishops, and their intellectual activity was like the breathing of the Church itself. In their own times they in fact constituted the teaching office, or at least its principal part, insofar as the entire teaching and learning Church looked to them, entrusted its defense to them, received their writings, and surrounded them with approval and praise. This whole complex of circumstances made them an authoritative voice in the Church and linked their work to the responsibility of its teaching office. Had they erred, the very organ of infallibility would have been compromised. From this it follows that the Fathers of the Church possess all the requisites for being considered guaranteed and qualified witnesses of the unaltered divine tradition.Such a conception naturally lies outside the doctrine of the Protestants, who, rejecting the Catholic concept of Tradition, admit no other guide in the sphere of faith than Sacred Scripture: they can therefore attribute to the Fathers no authority other than human authority.
On the other hand, the Fathers of the Church are not in every respect reliable instruments of revealed truths. Leaving aside doctrines that fall within the domain of reason, even in matters concerning faith and morals many of their expressions and statements have value only as transitional points, not as definitive formulations of doctrine. Indeed, more than once they corrected themselves, and not infrequently only after rigorous examination and lively disputes did they arrive at a more exact exposition of the doctrine handed down. It must also be borne in mind that their intellectual talents differ greatly; that they are links in the transmission of doctrine, not its terminus; that they are neither inspired nor exempt from error; that their writings are for the most part occasional and circumstantial, rather than systematic expositions of the truths of faith; and that before the controversies they often speak without precautions. Hence, according to the saying of St. Augustine, “their voices must be weighed, not counted” (Contra Iul., s. 35). This leads us to distinguish in them a twofold aspect: that of witnesses to Tradition, upon which the Church’s guarantee extends, and that of private doctors, who do not possess that guarantee, but are as trustworthy as their intellectual excellence, holiness, and, above all, the reasons they adduce.
In order to assess properly the authority of the Fathers of the Church, theologians usually propose the following norms: a) no Father is infallible in himself, except in the case that he was pope and taught ex cathedra, or insofar as individual passages of his writings have been confirmed by an ecumenical council; Alexander VII therefore rightly condemned the exaggeration of the Jansenists, who went so far as to prefer the authority of a single Father (in practice, St. Augustine) to the living teaching office of the Church (Denz-U, 320); b) the unanimous consensus of the Fathers in matters of faith and morals is to be regarded as irrefragable authority, because it is equivalent to the very doctrine of the Church: this was the teaching of the Councils of Trent (sess. IV) and the First Vatican Council (sess. III, 22), which prohibited assigning Sacred Scripture a meaning contrary to the concordant doctrine of the Fathers of the Church; such consensus does not, however, require numerical unanimity, but only moral unanimity, which could also be established by the testimony of a few, provided that from the circumstances in which it was given one may infer that it reflects the common faith of the Church; c) when such consensus is lacking, the doctrine of one or more Fathers, especially if it conflicts with that of others, is not to be accepted as certain; this does not mean, however, that it should be disregarded. d) The Fathers who, with the approval of the Church, distinguished themselves in combating particular heresies have the standing of classical authorities in the corresponding dogmas. Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria in Christology and St. Augustine in the doctrine of Grace.
III. THE PATRISTIC AGE
It is delimited within the boundaries of Christian antiquity established above, and is divided into three periods of unequal length, but equal in importance in certain respects.1. Period of the origins. — It extends to the Council of Nicaea (325) and is the period that most interests modern criticism, whose attention is directed in particular to Christian origins. The Apostolic Fathers belong to this period; their writings, although of slight literary or philosophical value, nevertheless reflect the immediate echo of apostolic preaching and show how the constitution impressed by Christ upon his Church was understood and implemented from the very beginning. This authority is shared only in part by the Apologetic Fathers of the second century, and even less by the controversialist Fathers of the following century; in compensation, the latter offer the first attempts at doctrinal systematization, making them true precursors of the great teachers of the golden period.
2. Golden period. — It is the shortest, since it ends with the death of s. Agostino (431), but it is also the period of the greatest splendor of patristic literature. Profound doctrinal crises, such as the Arian and Pelagian crises, afflicted the Church during this period. The Fathers of this age, engaged in the great disputes, were able to make a decisive contribution to the systematization of theological science. Among them stand out the figures of s. Atanasio, s. Basilio, s. Gregorio Nazianzeno, and s. Giovanni Crisostomo, regarded as the foremost Doctors of the Eastern Church; while in the West s. Girolamo, the Doctor of Scripture, s. Ambrogio, the Doctor of the independence of the Church, and s. Agostino, who is not merely the Doctor of Grace but the universal Doctor, held undisputed sway—the one who for several centuries was the principal, if not the sole, inspirer of Western Christian thought.
3. Period of decline. — It extends from the death of s. Agostino to the end of the patristic age. It is a period of gradual decline, caused by the barbarian invasions in the West and by the despotism of the emperors in the East. Great works almost entirely disappeared, and the few that were written bear the marks of weariness and lack of originality. This does not prevent very great figures from emerging here and there, such as those of s. Giovanni Damasceno and s. Gregorio Magno. But these are no more than fortunate exceptions, which do not dispel the overall impression. The importance of the Fathers of this period consists above all in having preserved the treasures of ancient theological learning; thus, placed as a link between the ancient world that was passing away and the new one that was beginning, they had the merit of laying the foundations of the subsequent medieval civilization.
IV. STUDY OF THE FATHERS
Two important sciences concern themselves with these figures of writers and thinkers, which are commonly regarded as distinct: patrology, which studies the historical-literary dimension of the Fathers, that is, directly their writings and, in relation to them, the lives of the individual authors; and patristics, which concerns the doctrinal aspect and is understood as the systematic exposition of the proofs drawn from patristic writings in demonstration of dogma (v. PATROLOGIA E PATRISTICA).V. LINGUA DEI PADRI
Until almost the whole of the 2nd century, the language of the Fathers was Greek. This is not surprising, if one considers that Christianity recruited its first followers chiefly from elements of Eastern origin. Moreover, Greek was at that time the international language par excellence, understood not only in the East but also throughout all the regions bordering on the Mediterranean, at least among the educated classes. It was, besides, the language which, because of its high degree of development, was best suited to express the richness of Christian thought.After the 3rd century, in the East, although Greek continued always to be held in honor, local idioms also came into use, especially Armenian and Syriac; whereas in the West, beginning in the year 180, the first literary manifestations in the Latin language appeared. Latin subsequently became the exclusive language of the Western Fathers.
The most ancient patristic documents remain outside the Greek literary tradition. At first, in fact, following the example of the translators of the Septuagint and of the New Testament hagiographers, the Fathers, in order to adapt themselves better to the understanding of the people, made use of the vulgar Greek of the koinē, as it had developed in Alexandria under the influence of Judeo-Hellenistic circles. But already in the apologists of the 2nd century a certain approach to traditional linguistic norms can be discerned. It was Clement of Alexandria who effected the definitive break with popular forms: after him, the use of the classical authors became part of the common practice of the Greek Fathers, and the 4th century, which witnessed a true flourishing of Christian humanism, produced such masterpieces of Christian thought that, in the purity of their language, they can compete with the most authentic models of Greek literature.
As regards the use of Latin, its late appearance among the Western Fathers has already been noted. This was due not only to the causes mentioned above, but also to the very nature of this language, which, unlike Greek, is not very pliable in expressing new and abstract ideas. In compensation, under the creative influence of Christian writers, especially Tertullian and St. Cyprian, the language of Rome entered a new phase of development. Its vocabulary, whose poverty Seneca had already lamented, was substantially enriched with new elements, derived in part from the Greek linguistic treasury, in part from many idioms of the period and forms used in legal terminology, and finally from neologisms. The result was ecclesiastical Latin, a very fresh and vibrant language, a pliant instrument of thought. For a long time this Latin of the Fathers was unjustly despised by scholars, as though Latin literature had spoken its last word toward the end of the 2nd century. The most recent studies of the language of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and others have demonstrated that the Fathers did not write in a manner unworthy of the finest representatives of classical Latinity, even though they used unprecedented terms and constructions. Through their work Latin literature, renewed by the evangelical ideal, became Christian from Roman; indeed, they deserve almost exclusive credit for having preserved, in a period of literary decadence, the high prestige of the culture and letters of Rome.