The Fathers of the Church
Why consider what the Fathers of the Church believed?
The Fathers of the Church, or Church Fathers, are generally considered to be respected Christian men who lived and died during the period of time from the apostles to about the middle of the seventh century and whose teachings and beliefs were recorded through their writings. The Catholic Catechism cites the Fathers of the Church among the principle sources for the Catholic Catechism:
“This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium” (para. 11).
It is important to know that the Fathers of the Church were not one homogenous group whose beliefs were always in agreement with one another. Although they held many of the same beliefs as those of the Catholic Church, there was great diversity among the beliefs of the Fathers of the Church, and not all of their beliefs are in agreement with the Catholic Church. Therefore, many of the Fathers of the Church are quoted in the Catholic Catechism where their beliefs coincide with the teachings of the Catholic Church but are not quoted where their beliefs differ. Following are three examples illustrating this point.
Did all the Church Fathers believe in transubstantiation?
The Catholic Catechism states the following about the Church Fathers’ beliefs regarding transubstantiation, the conversion of the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Jesus:
“It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion” (para. 1375).
The Catechism quotes John Chrysostom (d. 407) and Ambrose (d. 397) to demonstrate the Church Fathers’ support of transubstantiation. While some of the Church Fathers may have affirmed transubstantiation, not all Church Fathers affirmed this belief. Clement of Alexandria (d. 214) is quoted twice, and Tertullian (d. about 240) is quoted fourteen times in the Catholic Catechism, but neither is quoted in reference to transubstantiation, because neither one believed in it.
In the following passage, Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus’ drinking wine at the Last Supper and states not only that it was wine, not blood, but also that Jesus “figuratively calls the Word [or Himself ], ‘shed for many.’”
“In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’—the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’—the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, ‘I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father’ ” (The Instructor, 2:2).
And Tertullian clearly rejected transubstantiation, as illustrated in the following quotation:
“He [Jesus] says, it is true, that ‘the flesh profiteth nothing’; but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat His flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, ‘It is the spirit that quickeneth’; and then added, ‘The flesh profiteth nothing,’—meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ In a like sense He had previously said: ‘He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.’ Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation [title or designation]; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate [to chew cud] on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand), he had declared his flesh to be ‘the bread which cometh down from heaven,’ impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: ‘The flesh profiteth nothing.’ Now what is there to destroy the resurrection of the flesh? As if there might not reasonably enough be something which, although it ‘profiteth nothing’ itself, might yet be capable of being profited by something else. The spirit ‘profiteth,’ for it imparts life. The flesh profiteth nothing, for it is subject to death. Therefore He has rather put the two propositions in a way which favours our belief: for by showing what ‘profits,’ and what ‘does not profit,’ He has likewise thrown light on the object which receives as well as the subject which gives the‘profit’ ” (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, chap. 37).
In the quotation above, Tertullian explained that when some supposed that Jesus “had really and literally enjoined on them to eat His flesh,” Jesus explained that the flesh profits nothing and that it is the Spirit who gives life. Tertullian explained that it is with our ears, understanding, and faith that we devour, ruminate (chew), and digest the Word of God. Tertullian also explained that Jesus declared His flesh to be “the bread which cometh down from heaven” and that he was impressing on His hearers the “figure of necessary food.” Tertullian directly stated in the following quotation that the bread represents Jesus’ body.
“Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the ‘beggarly elements’ of the Creator” (Against Marcion, 1:14).
Tertullian not only stated again that the bread is a figure of Jesus’ body, but he went on to give examples from the Old Testament to show that this figurative representation was known from ancient times:
“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of My body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He [Marcion] did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, ‘Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?’ The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, ‘He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes’—in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood” (Against Marcion, 4:40).
Although there were some Church Fathers who believed in the “real presence” (which is not necessarily the same as transubstantiation) and some who may have believed in transubstantiation, these quotations from Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian show that not all the Church Fathers believed in it. Clement and Tertullian clearly believed that the bread and wine are figures to represent Jesus’ body and blood and are not transformed into them. So, despite the fact that Clement and Tertullian are quoted elsewhere in the Catholic Catechism, the Catholic Church leaves them out of the catechism when it comes to the topic of transubstantiation.
Did all the Church Fathers believe in penance and confession to a priest?
The Catholic Catechism teaches that
“The Church, who through the bishop and his priests forgive sins in the name of Jesus Christ and determines the manner of satisfaction...” (para. 1448).
Also,
“Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance:...‘When Christ’s faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest...’ ” (para. 1456).
And,
“Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing some thing more to make amends for the sin: he must ‘make satisfaction for’ or ‘expiate’ his sins. This satisfaction is also called ‘penance’ ” (para. 1459).
But Clement of Rome (d. 97), who is quoted five times in the Catholic Catechism, believed that we need to confess our sins only to God and that we do not need to do anything more to make amends for those sins.
“The Lord of all things, brethren, is in need of naught; neither requireth he anything of anyone, except to confess unto him. For the elect David saith, “I will confess unto the Lord, and that shall please him more than a young calf that putteth forth horns and hoofs. Let the poor behold and rejoice thereat.” And again he saith, “Offer unto the Lord the sacrifice of praise: pay thy vows unto the Most High. And call upon me in the day of thy affliction, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.” For “the sacrifice unto God is a broken spirit.” (Clement of Rome, First Epistle, Chapter 52)
Did all the Church Fathers believe Mary never sinned?
The Catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was free from all sin:
“Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, ‘full of grace’ through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: ‘The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin’ ” (para. 491).
The Catholic Catechism continues,
“By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long” (para. 493).
One of the Church Fathers, Origen (d. 232), who is quoted nine times in the Catholic Catechism, is not quoted once regarding Mary’s sinless nature, because he believed that,
“It is impossible for a man thus to be without sin. And this we say, excepting, of course, the man understood to be in Christ Jesus, who ‘did no sin’ ” (Against Celsus, 3:62).
He also believed the following:
“God has not been able to prevent even in the case of a single individual, so that one man might be found from the very beginning of things who was born into the world untainted by sin. . . . For ‘in Adam’ (as the Scripture says) ‘all die,’ and were condemned in the likeness of Adam’s transgression, the word of God asserting this not so much of one particular individual as of the whole human race. For in the connected series of statements which appears to apply as to one particular individual, the curse pronounced upon Adam is regarded as common to all (the members of the race), and what was spoken with reference to the woman is spoken of every woman without exception” (Against Celsus, 4:40; italics added).
Origen clearly believed that “the whole human race” was under the same curse of sin, and that, therefore, Mary must be included along with “every woman without exception.”
Two other Church Fathers, Ambrose (d. 415), who is quoted twenty-one times in the Catholic Catechism, and Augustine (d. 430), who is quoted eighty-seven times in the Catholic Catechism, also believed that Mary was not sinless, as seen by Augustine’s quoting Ambrose:
“The same holy man (Ambrose) also, in his Exposition of Isaiah, speaking of Christ, says: ‘Therefore as man He was tried in all things, and in the likeness of men He endured all things; but as born of the Spirit, He was free from sin. For every man is a liar, and no one but God alone is without sin. It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind.’ Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: ‘It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.’ These words, however, of the man of God are contradicted by Pelagius, notwithstanding all his commendation of his author, when he himself declares that ‘we are procreated, as without virtue, so without vice.’ What remains, then, but that Pelagius should condemn and renounce this error of his; or else be sorry that he has quoted Ambrose in the way he has? Inasmuch, however, as the blessed Ambrose, catholic bishop as he is, has expressed himself in the above-quoted passages in accordance with the catholic faith” (On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, 2:47, 48; italics added).
Ambrose and Augustine believed it was an “observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin.” Ambrose further stated that “whosoever is free from sin was not conceived and born through the union of a man and a woman.” “Whosoever” refers to either man or woman and must therefore also include Mary. Ambrose also stated that of those born of a woman, which includes Mary, it is the Lord Jesus alone who is holy. It is interesting to note that Augustine also stated that this belief was in accordance with the catholic, or universal, Christian faith at the time.
These are just a few of the numerous topics in which the beliefs of some of the Church Fathers differ greatly from other Church Fathers and from what the Catholic Church teaches. The Church Fathers were definitely not one homogenous group whose beliefs were always in agreement with one another. I have presented the information above to show that although the Church Fathers are referred to by the Catholic Catechism as principle sources for the Catholic Catechism, not all the Church Fathers held the same beliefs and that their beliefs do not always agree with the Catholic Catechism. The Catholic Catechism quotes Church Fathers when they are in agreement with Catholic doctrine and avoids the very same Church Fathers when their beliefs differ from Catholic doctrine. Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that Catholic doctrine is based on selected teachings of the Church Fathers. So, although the Church Fathers do provide insight into the beliefs of those in the early church, we must use Scripture, the inerrant Word of God, as the final authority for any and all doctrine.
____________________________________________________________
If you would like a free copy of the book
for yourself or to share with family or
friends, simply e-mail me at:
Joe@TeachingsOfTheCatholicChurch.com
and I will be happy to send one to you.
____________________________________________________________