It’s not uncommon for people to portray a fundamental misunderstanding of not only who the Church Fathers are, but also the place they hold in terms of expounding Catholic doctrine.
By Deacon Frederick Bartels
11 December 2024
Who are the Church Fathers?
There are different ways of classifying these men. Although there is no official list (as there is for Doctors of the Church), we begin with the Apostolic Fathers (like Clement or Polycarp or Ignatius), who either personally knew one or more of the apostles, or knew someone who knew them.
Then there are later Church Fathers, and they too are classified in different ways. In any case, the Church Fathers are Christian men in antiquity, ranging from the 1st century to the 8th century, as the Venerable Bede is often listed among them (d. 735).
For about the first two centuries, most of these men were bishops. Later, priests and deacons are included, as, for example, Hippolytus, a Roman priest who wrote in the early 2nd century, or St. Ephraem, a deacon of Edessa (306-373).
As to the question, “Who is a Church Father?” St. Vincent of Lerins answers: “Those alone who, though in diverse times and places, yet persevering in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, have been approved teachers.”
What do the Church Fathers have in common?
These men are called Church Fathers because of their leadership role of teaching in the early Church. They provide us with writing which defends, explains, and even develops Catholic doctrine. The Apostolic Fathers, for example, give us a special window into the teaching of the apostles. Even so, Church Fathers often wrote creatively, to diverse audiences and with varied purpose, which means some of the things they said can be difficult to understand.
What level of authority do the Fathers hold?
First, it’s essential to understand that, as individuals, they do not constitute the magisterium of the Church (The teaching office of the Church, i.e., the bishops of the entire Church in communion with the pope). Therefore what they wrote cannot be taken as documents of the magisterium.
Furthermore, even those Church Fathers who were bishops could not teach infallibly as individuals, just as bishops today cannot. And, as bishops today can err in their individual teaching, so too could—and did—the Church Fathers on occasion. To that end, a consensus among the Fathers is not to be expected on small matters.
With that in mind, the Church Fathers did not agree on every iota of doctrine. In fact, we sometimes (rarely) find in their writings what can be classified as material heresy. What does this mean? It means that, occasionally, they unintentionally got slightly off track theologically. That fact should be easy for us to understand, given the development of doctrine that takes place in the life of the Church as well as the Fathers’ lack of personal, individual infallibility.
What is important for Catholics and other Christians to know is that when the Church Fathers agree on doctrine, we can take that to mean they are handing on what the apostles taught.
Do we find agreement? Yes we do. For example, they are unanimous on such doctrines as the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ, that baptism saves and regenerates in the Holy Spirit, that the Church Christ founded is structured hierarchically and is indeed the Catholic Church, to name a few of others.
For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch, an Apostolic Father, wrote sometime around the year 107:
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God…. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Emphasis mine).
Additionally, the Church Fathers universally viewed heretics and schismatics as those who deny the authority and teaching of the Catholic Church and/or refuse communion with the pope. For example, St. Augustine whose role as a Church Father is indisputable, wrote:
We must hold fast to the Christian religion and to communion with that Church which is Catholic, and is called Catholic, not only by its own members but also by all its enemies. For whether they will or not, even heretics and schismatics, when talking not among themselves but with outsiders, call the Catholic church nothing else but the Catholic Church. For otherwise they would not be understood unless they distinguished the Church by that name which she bears throughout the whole world” (Synthesis, p. 249; from De vera relig. 7, 12).
The Catholic Encyclopedia offers some additional information in terms of interpreting the Church Fathers:
“[The] authority of single Fathers considered in itself,” says Franzelin (De Traditione, thesis xv), “is not infallible or peremptory; though piety and sound reason agree that the theological opinions of such individuals should not be treated lightly, and should not without great caution be interpreted in a sense which clashes with the common doctrine of other Fathers.”
“[The reason that we should view the Fathers in this way] is plain enough; they were holy men, who are not to be presumed to have intended to swerve from the doctrine of the Church, and their doubtful utterances are therefore to be taken in the best sense of which they are capable. If they cannot be explained in an orthodox sense, we have to admit that not the greatest is immune from ignorance or accidental error or obscurity….”
“As all the more important doctrines of the Church (except that of the Canon and the Inspiration of Scripture) may be proved, or at least illustrated, from Scripture, the widest office of tradition is the interpretation of Scripture, and the authority of the Fathers is here of very great importance. Nevertheless it is only then necessarily to be followed when all are of one mind.” [End quote]
The Importance of the Fathers
The Fathers, then, are of very great importance in terms of not only interpreting scripture but of providing a window into apostolic tradition as well. Why? For the simple fact that when they are found to be in unanimous agreement, we can view their teaching as having the mind of the apostles. In this way the Fathers hand on the apostolic teaching of the Church.
When some Protestants object and say, “The Fathers did not all agree! Therefore the solution is Protestantism and scripture alone!” We say, as Catholics, of course they didn’t all agree on everything. They are not expected to do so, and that is not the claim. Additionally, it is not uncommon for people to say, “so and so is a Church Father” when, in fact, he may not be.
In the end, small matters of disagreement among the Fathers do not pose a challenge to the authority granted them in their consensus on doctrine, any more than an individual bishop today who errs proves the divine institution and authority of the Catholic Church to be a sham.
When we read from the Fathers in consideration of their teaching and who these men really were, we find they were indeed thoroughly Catholic.
That is why John Henry Newman could say, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
Deacon Frederick Bartels is a member of the Catholic clergy who serves the Church in the diocese of Pueblo. He holds an MA in Theology and Educational Ministry, and is a Catholic educator, public speaker, and evangelist who strives to infuse culture with the saving principles of the gospel. For more, visit YouTube, iTunes and Twitter.
Leave a Reply