Is Tertullian a Genuine Church Father?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Good_Fella
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Good_Fella

Guest
The question has been raised by some Catholic scholars and apologists whether Tertullian can rightly be regarded as a Father of the Church or whether he is simply an early ecclesiastical writer and theologian because he eventually fell from communion with the Church by embracing the Montanist heresy. I haven’t really given it much thought, but I must admit that I never quote Tertullian when I refer to the Fathers of the Church to support the historical basis for traditional Catholic doctrine. What are your thoughts?

*PAX *
:confused:
 
brb3 said:
Yes, he was a giant … in his day ! A first rate mind.
Click to expand...
So is religious genius the only criterion for establishing that he is a Church Father? :confused: Perhaps there are criteria that disqualify him. So the question we are asking is what distinguishes a Church Father from just an ecclesiatical writer and theologian?

PAX
🙂
 
He falls in the patristic period and was no doubt in unity with the Church; that is until Montanism in some way unknown swayed his thinking. Right though, ecclesiastical writer is what he is considered. He’s quoted by the Church in the CCC as he was by many who followed him in his period who are Saints.
 
His pre-Montanist writings are included in the 37-volume set of the writings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, all of Volume 3 and part of Volume 4. It was his apologetic genius during this period of his ministry that qualified him to be known as a Church Father, despite what came later.
 
What is a “Church Father”?

The Church Fathers is a title bestowed on men (and some women such as Egeria of Spain fl AD 448) in the ancient Church that are united by four trademarks: (1) a rigid orthodoxy in doctrine, (2) an exemplary holy life, (3) approval in the Church, and (4) antiquity. Today, some ecclesiastical writers are bestowed this title who have partially fulfilled these marks (e.g. Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea). These writers are included due to their invaluable service to the Church. The majority of the Church Fathers were bishops, a few held a lower clerical rank such as St. Jerome, and fewer yet, were laymen such as Clement of Alexandria and perhaps Tertullian of Carthage. In the Catholic Church the period of antiquity ends with St. John Damascene (d AD 749) in the East and with St. Gregory the Great (d AD 604) or St. Isidore of Seville (d AD 636) in the West, hence the patristic age spans seven centuries.

St. Epiphanius provides us with this classic understanding of Church Father, he writes:

“Now of these which is wiser? This deceived man who has just now obtained notoriety, and who is still living; or they who were witnesses before us, who held before us the tradition in the Church, and who themselves had received it from their fathers, whose fathers again had learnt it from their forefathers, even as the Church, having received the true faith from its fathers, retains it, together with the traditions, even unto this day.”
Epiphanius, Panarion, 75(A.D. 374-377),in FOC,I:433-434
 
Thanks for your replies. Certainly Tertullian is included in the list of ante-Nicene Fathers because of the contributions he made in unison with them, but I have often felt uneasy about him because he did not peresevere in guarding what was entrusted to him. Paul expected Timothy to be faithful to the end to fulfill his divine office as bishop. The apostle exhorted his successor: “Guard what has been entrusted to you.” He could no longer be a bishop if he had at some point fallen from communion from the Church despite his previous contributions in preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments, could he? Shouldn’t the principles of fidelity and perseverance in the faith also apply to Tertullian? True, Tertullian was a layperson, but to be ranked among the Fathers of the Church, shouldn’t he have fulfilled his sacred duty like the rest of them to fully qualify as a peer? This is a question that bothers those who consider Tertullian just an ecclesiastical writer who eventually strayed, and because he did, he is just that. 🤷

PAX
🙂
 
Good_Fella said:
Thanks for your replies. Certainly Tertullian is included in the list of ante-Nicene Fathers because of the contributions he made in unison with them, but I have often felt uneasy about him because he did not peresevere in guarding what was entrusted to him. Paul expected Timothy to be faithful to the end to fulfill his divine office as bishop. The apostle exhorted his successor: “Guard what has been entrusted to you.” He could no longer be a bishop if he had at some point fallen from communion from the Church despite his previous contributions in preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments, could he? Shouldn’t the principles of fidelity and perseverance in the faith also apply to Tertullian? True, Tertullian was a layperson, but to be ranked among the Fathers of the Church, shouldn’t he have fulfilled his sacred duty like the rest of them to fully qualify as a peer? This is a question that bothers those who consider Tertullian just an ecclesiastical writer who eventually strayed, and because he did, he is just that. 🤷

PAX
🙂
Click to expand...
See, Tertullian is considered a Church Father BECAUSE of what he wrote about the Catholic Church BEFORE he was considered a heretic stray. His apologetic writings are actually pretty amazing and very accurate with what the Church continues to teach day in and day out. But, since he did fall away later, he is not considered a Saint but only an ecclesiastical writer.

Interesting fact though… his followers were converted by St. Augustine in the 4th century (The Fathers Know Best. Akin, Jimmy. Page 73) so they did eventually come back, but not Tertullian. 👍
 
Do we know his last days ? Perhaps he recovered to his earlier beliefs & made full recants.
We are all guilty of error in certain details. But, most of us would recant …if shown our mistakes…
 
Our priest referred to him in a reverent and respectful manner while making a point…when I got home I googleed him to get the skinny and sure enough in his time Tertullian was one of the great thinkers of the early church.
 
Church father does not imply that one was a saint, only that one’s theological teaching shaped Church doctrine during its formation. I believe the cutoff was St. Augustine’s time (+430), but I could be wrong.

IIRC, Origen is also known as a CF, though he was not canonized.

ICXC NIKA
 
Pope Leo XIII praised him with these words:

“Tertullian opposes heretics with the authority of the sacred writings; with the philosophers he changes his fence and disputes philosophically; but so learnedly and accurately did he confute them that he made bold to say: ‘Neither in science nor in schooling are we equals, as you imagine’ ” (Aeterni Patris).

Pope Benedict carefully refers to him as “the Church writer Tertullian” (Homily, 4/7/12), and even as the “great Christian writer Tertullian” (Deus Caritas Est). You can read his thoughts on Tertullian here.

You might also be familiar with Tertullian’s rhetorical “syllogism”:

“The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed because men must needs be ashamed of it. And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible” (, Ch. 5On the Flesh of Christ).

Pope Benedict recently interacted with a similar phrase:

“Credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd) is not a formula that interprets the Catholic faith. Indeed God is not absurd, if anything he is a mystery. The mystery, in its turn, is not irrational but is a superabundance of sense, of meaning, of truth” (General Audience, 11/21/12).

Jerome readily dismissed Tertullian: “Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church” (Against Helvidius). And Augustine also spoke of “the ravings of Tertullian” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 5.9On the Soul and Its Origin).

At best, we might say that some of his writings “fathered” the Church that followed after him, and in this sense we could consider him a Father. But he is not a Church Father in all of his writings, or in the example of his person, having left the Church in his later life. Perhaps Pope Benedict’s assessment is best:

“Rigid in his positions, he did not withhold blunt criticism and he inevitably ended by finding himself isolated. … This great moral and intellectual personality, this man who made such a great contribution to Christian thought, makes me think deeply. One sees that in the end he lacked the simplicity, the humility to integrate himself with the Church, to accept his weaknesses, to be forbearing with others and himself. When one only sees his thought in all its greatness, in the end, it is precisely this greatness that is lost. The essential characteristic of a great theologian is the humility to remain with the Church, to accept his own and others’ weaknesses, because actually only God is all holy. We, instead, always need forgiveness.”

With love in Christ,
Pete
 
brb3 said:
Do we know his last days ? Perhaps he recovered to his earlier beliefs & made full recants.
We are all guilty of error in certain details. But, most of us would recant …if shown our mistakes…
Click to expand...
Sadly, if this were true, the Church would have embraced him long ago…
 
Origen and Tertullian are certainly not among the Fathers, at least in our veneration of them. They are highly regarded for their work, but they are not Church Fathers.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Origen and Tertullian are certainly not among the Fathers, at least in our veneration of them. They are highly regarded for their work, but they are not Church Fathers.
Click to expand...
Got a definition of the Church Fathers?

Shalom, ICXC NIKA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top