Who and Why the Fathers?

Who are the "Fathers"?

An important initial question concerns exactly which individuals are considered "Church Fathers." Generally speaking, four aspects distinguish the Fathers:

1)    Antiquity.  In the west, different cut-off points:  death of Gregory the Great in 604; death of Isidore of Seville in 636; death of the Venerable Bede in 735.  In the east, death of John Damascene around 750.

2)    Holiness of life or zeal for the faith

3)    Orthodox teaching

o   A teaching, usually in writing

o   The teaching, or the reputation for teaching, must have been orthodox

4)    Ecclesiastical approval

Why are they important?

The importance of the Church Fathers cannot be stressed enough. They were privileged witnesses to Tradition with some of them even learning directly from the Apostles. They performed many important "firsts" including: fixing the canon of sacred books; first articulation regulae fidei; foundations of canonical discipline; first forms of liturgy. They also enjoy the approval of the Magisterium, as seen at the Council of Trent (Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of Sacred Books (Session 2; 7 January 1546)), the First Vatican Council (Dei Filius) and the papal magisteriums of John Paul II (see Apostolic Letter Patres Ecclesiae) and Benedict XVI, who devoted many audiences to the individual Fathers (see Audiences from 2007-2009.)

Ultimately, we owe much to the Fathers and learn many things from the study of them and their teaching. Their commentaries on Sacred Scripture are especially important, because they approached the Scriptures with an utmost holiness and read them in a Spiritual yet historical way that is mainly lost today. To not study them is a detriment. 

Note:

I owe much of the information in this post to the great teaching and notes of Dr. Daniel Van Slyke. 

Cyril of Alexandria

On 1 Cor 14:1-5
"Here Paul frees the Corinthians from the notion that speaking in tongues is a greater credit to them than interpreting the words of the prophets." (CB, 230)
Obviously, some in Corinth believed that tongues were a tremendous gift above many, if not all, other gifts. St. Paul sought to correct that view by showing that tongues are not as useful as learning the teachings of the prophets. Some in our own time need to hear this.

John Chrysostom

"To another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues." 1 Cor 12:10
 "Now the former was thought to be a great gift since it was the first that the apostles received, and the majority of the Corinthians possessed it." (CB, 203)
Here, Chrysostom clearly states that the gift of tongues present in Corinth was the same that the apostles received in Jerusalem at Pentecost (Acts 2), that is, the ability to speak in many different languages.

"For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit." 1 Cor 14:2
"The Corinthians thought that speaking in tongues was a great gift because it was the one which the apostles received first, and with great display. But this was no reason to think it was the greatest gift of all. The reason the apostles got it first was because it was a sign that they were to go everywhere preaching the gospel." (ACCS, 138)
Clearly, the symbolism of universal evangelization would not follow if it was not presumed that the tongues were actual languages (as Acts says they were). The identification of the Corinthians' gift with the apostles' shows that the Corinthians spoke in actual languages, too.

"So with yourselves; if you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible, how will any one know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air." 1 Cor 14:9
"If speaking in tongues is useless, why was it given? It was given for the benefit of the person who has it. But if it is to help others also, then there must be some interpretation." (ACCS, 139)
Tongues, to be of any use to the Church as a whole, must be interpreted. Otherwise, they are useless. This is a major reason why they are a lesser gift.

"Tongues are a sign for unbelievers and prophecy for believers." 1 Cor 14:22
"(Paul) does not say that prophecy is useless for unbelievers, but that it is not a sign as tongues are, because it is obviously wasted on them. But neither are tongues of any use for unbelievers. Their only effect is to astound and disturb." (CB, 235)
"What Paul means is this: prophecy is effective among both believers and unbelievers, but when unbelievers and fools hear a strange tongue, they receive no benefit and even mock the speakers as if they were madmen (Acts 2:13). It is only a sign for them, namely, something that perplexes them. But the sign was given that those with understanding might profit from it..." (CB, 236)
Chrysostom explains St. Paul's distinction concerning the usefulness of prophecy and tongues. If not translated into prophecy, the strange tongues will lack in their full effect and only appear as foreign sounds. The hearers will experience astonishment, but ultimately what is uttered is not of much use unless one can translate it.

Origen

General Comments on 1 Cor 14:6-12
"Those who speak in a tongue and do not interpret ought not to speak since their words are undifferentiated and unintelligible." (CB, 231)
Here we glimpse some sort of criterion for when one should speak in tongues and when one should be silent. Origen states that only when an interpretation will accompany the speech should one speak in tongues. I imagine this would avoid confusion and scandal.

Severian of Gabala

"There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning." 1 Cor 14:10
"There is no language without meaning because all languages are human." (ACCS, 139)
This comment strongly conveys his belief that any gift of tongues is "xenolalia" and not "glossolalia."

"Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for believers but for unbelievers." 1 Cor 14:22
"Clearly tongues are beneficial when the listener realizes that the one who speaks in tongues is using a language he does not know, one that has no human source. But the content of what is said does not help the hearer because he does not understand it." (CB, 234)
When Severian of Gabals refers to the language as not having a human source, he would refer to it in the sense of efficient causality. In other words, the speaking of the language does not have a human cause, because the individual did not study and learn it as others who spoke that language did. It is a comment on the learning of the language and not the language itself. The language is human while the mode of learning is divine.

"If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God." 1 Cor 14:27-28
"When Paul says let him keep silent, he teaches that a person who is speaking in the Holy Spirit speaks when he wishes and is silent when he wishes. This is the practice of the prophets, but not of those possessed by an unclean spirit. The latter speak when they do not wish and utter thing they do not understand." (CB, 237)
Obviously, the individual with the gift of tongues exercises control over this gift. This seems to lend even more credibility to the reading of "tongues" as "xenolalia" as opposed to the spontaneous and uninterpretable "glossolalia."

Theodoret

General Comments
"Paul does two things at once: he condemns their ambitious rivalry and teaches them how to use the spiritual gift. Because of the diversity of human languages, preachers received the ability to speak in tongues so that when them came to inhabitants of India, they could use their own language to bring them God's message. Again, by using the language of each people, they could proclaim the gospel to Persians or Scythians or Romans or Egyptians. But for anyone speaking in Corinth it was pointless to use the languages of the Scythians or Persians or Egyptians, since the Corinthians could not understand them." (CB, 230)
This is certainly a clear indication of the interpretation of "tongues" as "xenolalia." Theodoret portrays the ability to speak in foreign languages as real and applicable for the evangelization of the world.

"He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless some one interprets, so that the church may be edified." 1 Cor 14:5b
"When there is no interpreter for what is uttered in tongues, prophecy is better because it is more beneficial." (CB, 231)

Thomas Aquinas

The only Universal Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas provides us with rich interpretations of Scripture. His vast learning as well as masterful understanding of the Fathers gives a full, deep, and understandable reading to God's Word.


"To another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues." 1 Cor 12:10
"But the faculty of speaking persuasively consists in being able to speak intelligibly to others. This can be prevented in two ways: in one way by a diversity of dialects. Against this is applied the remedy signified by what he says: to another is given various kinds of tongues, namely, in order that he be able to speak in diverse languages, so that he will be understood by all, as it says of the apostles in Ac (2:4) that they spoke in various languages." (par. 729)
Aquinas, firmly within the tradition of Scriptural interpretation he inherited from the Fathers but also based upon his own study and intellectual power, asserts that "tongues" refers to the ability to speak a variety of languages.


"Make love your aim, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. On the other hand, he who prophesies speaks to men for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church." 1 Cor 14:1-4
"In regard to the second it should be noted that because there were few in the early Church assigned to preaching faith of Christ throughout the world, the Lord enabled them to proclaim the word to more people by giving them the gift of tongues, by which they could all preach to all. Not that they spoke in one language and were understood by all, as some say, but that they spoke the languages of different nations and, indeed, of all. Hence the Apostle says: “I thank God that I speak in the languages of all of you,” and in Ac (2:4) it says: “They began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” Furthermore, many received this gift from God in the early church. But the Corinthians, being inquisitive, were more desirous of this gift than the gift of prophecy. Therefore, when the Apostle mentions here about speaking in a tongue, he means an unknown language not interpreted; as when one might speak German to a Frenchman without an interpreter, he is speaking in a tongue. Hence, all speech not understood not explained, no matter what it is, is properly called speaking in a tongue" (par. 814)
Another assertion that "tongues" refers to "xenolalia."


"Therefore, he who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret." 1 Cor 14:13
"First, therefore, he says: I have said that the gift of tongues without the gift of prophecy has no value, because interpretation is an act of prophecy, which is more excellent than speaking in tongue. One who speaks in a tongue, unknown or foreign, certain hidden mysteries, should pray, namely, to God, for the power to interpret, i.e., that the grace to interpret be given him: “Praying that God may open to us a door” (Col 4:3). A Gloss exposits pray differently. For ‘to pray’ is said to be twofold, namely either to beseech God or to prevail upon him; as if he says: he who speaks in a tongue, let him pray, i.e., let him prevail upon God, so that he may interpret. And so the Gloss understands ‘to pray’ here for the whole chapter. But this is not the meaning of the Apostle, but rather it is ‘to beseech God’." (par. 835)
Aquinas draws the link between tongues and prophecy by showing that the translation/interpretation of tongues is prophecy. Prophecy always excels tongues, but tongues become prophecy when interpreted.

"If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?" 1 Cor 14:23
"The undesirable effect which follows from the gift of tongues without prophecy, even in regard to unbelievers, is that those who speak only in tongues are considered mad, whereas the gift of tongues should be ordained to the conversion of unbelievers, as is already clear. And this is what he says: If you speak in tongues. As if to say: that tongues are not preferable to prophecy is clear from the fact that if they assemble, namely, all the faithful, in one place not only in body but also in mind: “Now the company of believers were of one heart and soul” (Ac 4:22), and all speak in tongues, i.e., strange, or speak unknown and obscure things and, while they are thus confusedly speaking, an outsider enter, i.e., one who understands only his own tongue, or an unbeliever for whose benefit tongues were given, will they not say to those so speaking that you are mad? For what is not understood is considered madness. But if a tongue is understood and nevertheless the things said are secret, if they are not explained, it is evil because they could believe of you, (if you speak secret things), what they believe of the gentiles, who made secret what they did in their rites, so base were they. And this is also a form of madness." (par. 860)
Here Aquinas shows that tongues are not useful, especially in evangelization, unless interpretation accompanies them.

"If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God." 1 Cor 14:27-28
"Then when he says: But if there is no one to interpret, he shows when tongues should not be used, saying that they should speak in parts and one should interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, one who has the gift of tongues, should keep silence in the church, i.e., should not speak or preach to the multitude in a strange tongue, because he is not understood by them, but should speak to himself or to God, because he understands himself; and this in silence by praying or meditating: “I will speak in the bitterness of my soul. I will say to God: Do not condemn me.” (Jb 10:1)." (par. 871)
Finally, Aquinas comments on the appropriate conduct and use of tongues in the general assembly. As expected, unless there is someone to interpret the tongue, the speaker should remain silent and pray to God.

Sources

I used two printed sources and one online source for my quotations from the Fathers and Aquinas:

1-2 Corinthians. Ed. Gerald Bray. Downers Grove, IL. InterVarsity Press, 1999. (ACCS)
1 Corinthians: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators. Trans. & ed. Judith L. Kovacs. Grand Rapids, MI. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005. (CB)
Thomas Aquinas. Commentary On the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Trans. Fabian Larcher. online at dhspriory.org. http://dhspriory.org/thomas/SS1Cor.htm#122.