FATHERS OF THE CHURCH. – Ancient ecclesiastical writers distinguished by orthodox doctrine and holiness of life, who are recognized by the Church as witnesses to the divine tradition.
I. CONCEPT
The name “Fathers” has an Eastern origin. The ancient peoples of the East, in fact, honored with this title the teachers considered as authors of the intellectual life that originated from their teaching. In this sense, the disciples of the prophetic schools were called filii prophetarum, and their master was called pater (1 Kings 10:12; 1 Sam. 40:35); St. Paul calls himself “father” of his new converts (1 Cor. 4:15).In the early Church, this name was applied to bishops, who, precisely because they were ministers of the sacraments and depositories of the Church’s doctrinal heritage, were considered as engendering that life in Christ of which St. Paul speaks in the cited text (cf. Martyrium Polycarpi, 12:2; Acta Cypriani, 3:3). Beginning in the 4th century, when the early bishops began to be regarded as authoritative witnesses of tradition and judges in dogmatic controversies, doctrinal authority was especially emphasized, and the name “Fathers” became restricted to those who had left written testimony to the faith. Soon, however, this title was extended to non-bishops as well, through the work of St. Augustine, who cited as a witness to Catholic doctrine on original sin the contemporary St. Jerome, a simple priest (Contra Ind., 1:34; 2:36). Yet not all ecclesiastical writers were fit to bear witness to the faith of the Church, since some had fallen into serious errors. Therefore, ancient ecclesiastical writers were divided into two categories: those recognized by the Church as witnesses to the faith, and those who were not. The first example of such a distinction is found in the decretal De libris recipiendis et non recipiendis from the 6th century, attributed to Pope Gelasius, which thus constitutes the oldest catalog of Christian writers recognized as Fathers of the Church.
Taking into account the various determinations this title underwent, four elements contribute to the concept: a) orthodox doctrine: as guardians of the tradition received from their predecessors, they must transmit it unaltered to subsequent generations; this orthodoxy is understood as a faithful communion of doctrine with the Church, not as total immunity from even material errors—for all, the example of St. Cyprian holds true; b) holiness of life: as teachers, the Fathers of the Church must exhibit Christian virtues to a high degree, not only preached but practiced; this quality constitutes a guarantee and sublimation of orthodoxy itself; c) approval by the Church: just as the Church can define the canon of Scripture, so too can it determine the authentic witnesses of Tradition; explicit approval is not necessary, however—implicit approval suffices, as might be seen, for example, in the citation of a Father by an ecumenical council; d) antiquity: on this point there has been some fluctuation, and for a long time medieval writers from the period before Scholasticism were also classified among the Fathers of the Church. Later, greater strictness prevailed, and now the patristic era is generally considered to end in the West with the death of St. Isidore of Seville (636) and in the East with that of St. John Damascene (c. 750).
In practice, the name “Fathers” is sometimes extended, in a broad sense, to some writers of the early period who were not saints or who, at some point in their writings, were not orthodox, such as Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius of Caesarea. The eminent services rendered by such men for other reasons explain these exceptions: to them the title “ecclesiastical writers” is more properly applied. The category of the Fathers of the Church only partially coincides with that of the Doctors of the Church (v.), for whom, although antiquity is not required, an eminent learning and explicit recognition by the Church are necessary.
II. AUTHORITY
The importance of the Fathers of the Church is not merely literary or historical but is founded 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 magisterium of the Church. They were largely bishops, and their intellectual activity was like the very breath of the Church. In their time, they constituted in fact the magisterium, or at least its principal part, inasmuch as the entire teaching and learning Church looked to them, entrusted to them the defense of the faith, received their writings, and surrounded them with approval and praise. This complex of circumstances made them an authoritative voice in the Church and linked their work to the responsibility of its magisterium. 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 to be considered guaranteed and qualified witnesses of the unaltered divine tradition.This conception, naturally, is foreign to Protestant doctrine, which, rejecting the Catholic concept of Tradition, admits no other guide in matters of faith than Holy Scripture; hence they cannot attribute to the Fathers any authority beyond the human.
On the other hand, the Fathers of the Church are not entirely reliable instruments of revealed truth. Apart from doctrines that fall within the domain of reason, even in matters of faith and morals many of their expressions and sayings are only transitional points, not definitive formulations of doctrine. More than once they have corrected themselves, and not infrequently only after severe examination and lively disputes did they arrive at a more accurate exposition of the transmitted doctrine. It must also be kept in mind that their intellectual talents vary greatly; they are links in the transmission of doctrine, not its terminus; they are not inspired and are not exempt from error; their writings are mostly occasional and circumstantial rather than systematic expositions of the truths of faith; and before controversies arise, they often speak without due caution. Therefore, according to the saying of St. Augustine, their voices must be weighed and not merely counted (Contra Iul., 2:35). This gives rise to a twofold aspect in them: that of witnesses to Tradition, which is guaranteed by the Church, and that of private doctrine, which lacks such guarantee but is as reliable as the excellence of their intellect, their holiness, and, above all, the reasons they adduce.
To properly evaluate 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 a pope and taught *ex cathedra*, or if and insofar as individual passages from his writings have been confirmed by an ecumenical council; thus, the exaggeration of the Jansenists, who went so far as to prefer the authority of a single Father (in concreto, St. Augustine) to the living magisterium of the Church, was justly reproved by Alexander VII (Denz.-U., 120); b) the unanimous consent of the Fathers in matters of faith and morals is to be considered an irrefutable authority, because it is equivalent to the doctrine of the Church itself: this was the teaching of the Council of Trent (Session IV) and the Vatican Council (Session III, chap. 22), which forbade interpreting Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to the unanimous doctrine of the Fathers of the Church. Such consent, however, does not require numerical unanimity; moral unanimity suffices, which could even be had from the testimony of a few, provided that from the circumstances in which it was given it can be inferred that it reflects the common faith of the Church; c) when such consent is lacking, the doctrine of one or more Fathers, especially if it contradicts that of others, is not to be admitted as certain; this does not mean, however, that it should be neglected. d) Fathers who, with the approval of the Church, distinguished themselves in combating particular heresies, are to be regarded as classical authorities in the related dogmas. Thus, St. Cyril of Alexandria in Christology and St. Augustine in the doctrine of grace.
III. **Era of the Fathers.** — This is delimited within the boundaries of Christian antiquity as established above, and is subdivided into three periods of unequal length, but of equal importance in certain respects.
1. **Period of Origins.** — It extends up to the Council of Nicaea (325) and is the one that most interests modern criticism, whose attention is particularly directed to the origins of Christianity. Belonging to this era are the Apostolic Fathers, whose writings, though lacking in literary or philosophical value, nonetheless reflect the immediate echo of apostolic preaching and inform us how the constitution given by Christ to His Church was understood and realized from the very beginning. This authority is shared only in part by the Apologists of the 2nd century, and even less by the Controversial Fathers of the following century; in compensation, the latter offer the first examples of doctrinal systematization, making them true precursors of the great masters of the golden period.
2. **Golden Period.** — This is the shortest, ending with the death of St. Augustine (431), but it is also the period of the greatest splendor of patristic literature. Deep doctrinal crises, such as the Arian and Pelagian, troubled the Church at this time. The Fathers of this era, engaged in great disputes, were able to make a decisive contribution to the systematization of theological science. Among them stand out the figures of St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. John Chrysostom, considered the greatest Doctors of the Eastern Church; while in the West, St. Jerome, the Doctor of Sacred Scripture, St. Ambrose, the Doctor of the independence of the Church, and St. Augustine, who is not only the Doctor of Grace but the universal Doctor—he who for several centuries was the principal, if not the sole, inspirer of Western Christian thought—dominate unchallenged.
3. **Period of Decline.** — It extends from the death of St. Augustine to the end of the patristic era. It is a period of slow decline, caused by the barbarian invasions in the West and the despotism of the emperors in the East. Great works were almost entirely lacking, and the few that were written bear the mark of weariness and lack of originality. This does not prevent the occasional emergence of outstanding figures, such as St. John Damascene and St. Gregory the Great. But these are only happy exceptions that do not destroy the overall impression. The importance of the Fathers of this era consists above all in having preserved the treasures of ancient theological learning, so that, acting as a link between the dying ancient world and the new one that was beginning, they earned the merit of laying the foundations of the subsequent medieval civilization.
IV. STUDY OF THE FATHERS. — Two important disciplines deal with these figures of writers and thinkers, which are commonly considered distinct: patrology, which studies the historical-literary context of the Fathers, that is, their writings directly and, in relation to them, the lives of the individual authors; and patristics, which concerns the doctrinal aspect and is considered the systematic exposition of the proofs drawn from patristic writings in demonstration of dogma (v. Patrology and Patristics).
V. LANGUAGE OF THE FATHERS. — Up to almost the entire 2nd century, the language of the Fathers was Greek. This is not surprising if one considers that Christianity recruited its followers from elements predominantly 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 the Mediterranean, at least among the educated classes. It was, moreover, the language that, by virtue of its development, was best suited to express the richness of Christian thought.
After the 3rd century, in the East, while Greek remained in honor, local idioms were also used, especially Armenian and Syriac, whereas in the West, beginning around the year 180, the first literary manifestations in the Latin language began to appear; this subsequently became the exclusive language of the Western Fathers.
The most ancient patristic documents remain outside the Greek literary tradition. At first, indeed, following the example of the translators of the Septuagint and the New Testament writings, the Fathers, in order to better adapt to the understanding of the people, made use of the vulgar Greek of the end of the period, as it had developed in Alexandria under the influence of Jewish-Hellenistic circles. But already in the Apologists of the 2nd century a certain approximation to traditional linguistic norms can be observed. It was Clement of Alexandria who definitively broke away from popular forms: after him, the use of classical authors became common practice among the Greek Fathers, and the 4th century, which saw a true flourishing of Christian humanism, produced such masterpieces of Christian thought that, in the purity of their language, they can rival the most authentic models of Greek literature.
As for the use of Latin, its late appearance among the Western Fathers has already been noted, due not only to the causes mentioned above but also to the very nature of this language, which, unlike Greek, is less adaptable for expressing new and abstract ideas.