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.