The Four Marks of Church Fathers

The Church Fathers are an invaluable resource for learning about the history and doctrine of the early Church. But what makes one a Father of the Church? Just as the Church has four marks, so do the Fathers as well. In the words of the William A. Jurgens in Volume 1 of his three part series The Faith of the Early Fathers:

The Church, we learned as children, has four marks by which it may be known. Coincidentally there are four marks also by which a writer is recognized as a Father of the Church: a) orthodox doctrine, b) sanctity of life, c) antiquity, and d) approval of the Church. Antiquity is easily decided. The patristic age, by common agreement, ends in the West with the death of St. Isidore of Seville in the year 636 A.D., and in the East with the death of St. John Damascene in 749 A.D.

The antiquity of the writer is easier to establish than the other three marks. Orthodoxy does not mean that all writings must be free from error. It simply means that a writer was devoted to orthodoxy and attempted to adhere to the Faith of the Church. As for sanctity of life, holiness does not mean the same thing as impeccability. Indeed, many who have become saints lived very imperfect lives before their conversions (as can be seen in Augustine's Confessions). Finally, approval by the Church is the most difficult mark to define. Most Church Fathers established their authority as their writings were used throughout history.

There are two more categories to consider: Apostolic Fathers and ecclesiastical writers. The Apostolic Fathers are a subset of the larger group of Church Fathers. The Apostolic Fathers are those writers who lived in the Apostolic Age, that is, before the death of the Apostle John (i.e. St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Clement of Rome, St. Polycarp of Smyrna). Ecclesiastical writers, on the other hand, are those who lived in the patristic age but lack one or more of the other marks. Ecclesiastical writers include heretics such as Arius and Novatian.

Who, then, are the Doctors of the Church? According to Fr. Christopher Rengers in his book The 33 Doctors of the Church:

There are three requisites for this highly distinguished title: holiness of life, importance and orthodoxy of writings, and official recognition by the Church.

As can be seen, Doctors share many similarities with the Fathers. There are key differences, however. For instance, a Doctor of the Church did not have to live during the Patristic Age, although many were from the first centuries of the Church. The other key distinction is that the Doctors have been recognized by the Church because of the volume of their writings and significance of their teachings.

It is not the case, therefore, that what the Church called a Father became a Doctor later on in time, so as to be inclusive to women. That they are not the same can be proved through example. For instance, some writers are both Fathers and Doctors (Augustine, Jerome, Athanasius, etc.), some are only Fathers (Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, etc.), some are only Doctors (Francis de Sales, Teresa of Avila, Aquinas), and some fall into neither camp (the remaining 99.999999%).

Who will be the next Doctor of the Church? The two names I hear most are Irenaeus and Duns Scotus. But I think the next Doctor of the Church should be Ignatius of Loyola, as he founded the Jesuits, composed the Spiritual Exercises, was a missiorary of the Church, and changed the course of European and Church history.

My Favorite Passages from Mere Christianity

Here are some of my favorite passages from Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis:

We believe in decency so much that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behavior that we find all these explanations. It is only out bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good behavior down to ourselves.

In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get neither comfort or truth—only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and in the end, despair.

Some people put up as version of Christianity suitable for a child of six and make that the object of their attack. When you try to explain the Christian doctrine as it is really held by an instructed adult, they say it’s all too complicated and that if there really were a God they are sure he would have made religion simple. Notice their idea of God making religion simple, as if religion were something God invented, and not his statement to us of certain unalterable facts about his own nature.

Repentance is not something God demands of you before He will take you back and which He could let you off if he chose: it is simply a description of what going back to Him is like. If you ask God to take you back without it, you are really asking him to let you back without going back.

The belief in the immortality of the human person has a connection with the difference between totalitarianism and democracy. If individuals live only seventy years, then a state, or a nation, or a civilization, which may last for a thousand years, is more important than an individual. But if Christianity is true, then the individual is not only more important but incomparably more important, for he is everlasting and the life of a state or a civilization, compared with his, is only a moment.

Every time you make a choice you are turning the central part of you, the part of you that chooses, into something a little different from what it was before. And taking your life as a whole, with all your innumerable choices, all your life long you are slowly turning this central thing either into a heavenly creature or into a hellish creature.

How could you hate what a man did and not hate the man? But it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life—namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why I hated the things was that I loved the man. Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things.

When I come to my evening prayers and try to reckon up the sins of the day, nine times out of ten the most obvious one is some sin against charity; I have sulked or snapped or sneered or snubbed or stormed. And the excuse that immediately springs to mind is that the provocation was so sudden and unexpected; I was caught off guard. I had not time to collect myself. Surely what a man does when he is taken off guard is the best evidence for what sort of a man he is? Surely what pops out before the man has time to put on a disguise is the truth? If there are rats in a cellar you are most likely to see them if you go in very suddenly. But the suddenness does not create the rats: It only prevents them from hiding. In the same way the suddenness of the provocation does not make me an ill-tempered man; it only show me what an ill-tempered man I am.

In Defense of Infant Baptism

One may ask, "Why is it necessary to debate the merits of infant baptism?" I answer that infant baptism flows naturally from a proper understanding of original sin and the importance of Baptism in the economy of salvation. A proper understanding of Baptism helps us to fully appreciate the nature of the sacraments. A proper understanding of the sacraments helps us fully appreciate the nature of grace. A proper understanding of grace helps us understand the mission of Christ, the nature of the Church, and the essence of God's love.

This entry will be a collection of relevant information rather than a flowing and concise argument.

Some Christians, such as Fundamentalists and Baptists, object to the Catholic practice of infant baptism because they believe that baptism should be reserved for those who have “accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.” These ecclesial communities see baptism as a mere outward manifestation of a “born again” conversion and as a rite of initiation into a particular church. One can see how infant baptism must be rejected if these premises are true.

While there were a few heretical groups in the Middle Ages who rejected infant baptism, it was not until the 16th century that we see whole denominations (i.e. the Anabaptists) rejecting the timeless teaching of the Church. It should be noted, however, that mainline Protestants such as Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists retain the practice of infant baptism.

The Catholic Church takes the New Testament teachings on Baptism very seriously. Consider these passages: 

Baptism…now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Pet 3:21)

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

And Peter said to them, "Repeat and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:3-4)

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Col 2:11-12)

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Gal 3:27)

And here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about Baptism:

Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit, and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as the sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word." (CCC 1213)

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have had the possibility of asking for the sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. (CCC 1257)

By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God. (CCC 1263)

Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” and adopted son of God, who has become “a partaker of the divine nature,” member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit. (CCC 1265)

And here is what the Catechism says about Infant Baptism:

Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifested in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth. (CCC 1250)

The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized. (CCC 1252)

While infant baptism is not explicitly addressed in the New Testament, it is certainly implied. Certainly there are no verses that restrict baptism to adults only. Here are the important verses giving implicit support to infant baptism:

Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it. (Lk 18:15-17)

And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children...." (Acts 2:38-39)

And we read of entire households being baptized:

And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family. (Acts 16:33)

I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. (1 Cor 1:16)

For clarity on the subject it is important to look to the teachings of the early Church Fathers. These writings leave little doubt about the efficacy of infant baptism. Here are several important passages from the first centuries of the Church:

Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.

- St. Hippolytus of Rome, The Apostolic Tradition [c. A.D. 215]

Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin...and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous.

- Origen, Homilies on Leviticus [post A.D. 244]

The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.

- Origen, Commentaries on Romans [post A.D. 244]

As to what pertains to the case of infants: you said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judged that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born.

- St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter of Cyprian and of his Colleagues in Council to the Number of Sixty-Six [A.D. 251/252]

Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit.

- St. Gregory of Nazianz, Oration on the Holy Lights [A.D. 381]

“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.

- St. Ambrose, Abraham [A.D. 387]

The Blessed Cyprian was not issuing some new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth, when he said that it was not the flesh but the soul that was [in danger of] being lost; and he agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born.

- St. Augustine, Letter of Augustine to Jerome [A.D. 415]

The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except Apostolic.

- St. Augustine, Literal Interpretation of Genesis [inter A.D. 401-415]

If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this….The Sacrament of Baptism is most assuredly the Sacrament of regeneration. But just as the man who never lived cannot die, and one who has not died cannot rise again, so too one who was never born cannot be reborn. From this we conclude that no one who has not been born in his parent is able to be reborn….Unless we voluntarily depart from the rule of the Christian faith it must be admitted that inasmuch as infants are, by the Sacrament of Baptism, conformed to the death of Christ, they are also freed from the serpent’s venomous bite. This bite, however, they did not receive in their own proper life, but in him who first suffered that wound.

- St. Augustine, Forgiveness of Sins [A.D. 412]

It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments.

                - Council of Carthage, [A.D. 401]

Whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration,

      - Council of Mileum, [A.D. 416]

It is also important to note that St. Paul and the Tradition of the Church view Baptism as the new circumcision. In the Old Covenant circumcision was performed on the eighth day after birth. God did not make them wait until they had reached the age of reason and were thus capable of making an act of faith. If God welcomed newborns into Israel by means of ritual circumcision for two thousand years, why would He suddenly close the kingdom to babies because they could not understand ritual baptism? (Hahn, Reasons to Believe). It is interesting to note there was never any controversy in the early Church over the practice of infant baptism until the third century when the Council of Carthage (A.D. 252) condemned the novel proposition that baptism ought to be postponed until the eighth day after birth (see quote from St. Cyprian).

Before ending this entry I must address one of the most common objections to infant baptism. Why is it that in the New Testament we read of so many adults being baptized? This can be answered with a little common sense. The Incarnation of Christ was the central event of history. It was Christ who instituted the sacrament of baptism. Therefore, Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles, along with most of the Christians of the Apostolic age had to be baptized as adults because Christ had only recently instituted the sacrament.