Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis, Tomus II (Pars Altera): Demonstratio Catholica

By the name of Fathers, in the broad sense, are understood all ecclesiastical writers who in the earlier centuries illustrated Christian doctrine by their writings.¹

They are called by the name of Fathers because they upheld the Church in her youth, i. e. during the first eight centuries or so. Hence St. John Damascene († 764) is called the last Father. Less aptly is the age of the Fathers sometimes extended up to the twelfth century; for then some particular Churches, indeed, were younger in age, but not the universal Church, which the title of Father regards. Now we must weigh the authority both of the consenting Fathers and of the individual Fathers.

1. The authority of the consenting Fathers. Proposition: The unanimous consensus of the Fathers on some doctrine as revealed is a certain argument of divine Tradition.

It is explained. The proposition says:

a) The unanimous consensus of the Fathers. For the Fathers testify infallibly to Tradition inasmuch as they represent the faith of the universal Church. But neither individual Fathers nor the Fathers of several particular Churches are able to represent the faith of the universal Church, but only the Fathers of the whole world, that is, the consensus of all the Fathers taken morally. This consensus can be established directly or indirectly. It is established directly, or by an accumulation of consensus, if so many Fathers can be cited that a moral unanimity, numerically proven, appears. To this pertains the rule of Cardinal Perron, commonly received by the theologians: "Then the unanimous consensus of the Fathers, proved cumulatively, ought to be esteemed, when the most eminent men of individual nations agree in the assertion of some matter, so that among them no one who, always orthodox, has always adhered to the orthodox, dissents." It is established indirectly, or by inference, if the condition of the testifying Fathers is such that from the testimony of several, the opinion of all and the faith of the whole Church can be inferred. And this happens when all the Western Fathers agree,² or all the later Fathers, who flourished after some doctrine first began to be impugned or treated, or several Fathers diverse in age and homeland, the rest not objecting,³ or finally a few Fathers, whom the whole Church follows as leaders in some controversy, e. g. Basil, Hilary, Athanasius, the two Gregories, and Augustine defending the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity against the Arians; Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the Great, Agatho, Sophronius establishing the christological dogma against the Nestorians and Monophysites; Augustine and Fulgentius fighting for grace against the Pelagians.

b) On some doctrine as revealed. It does not, therefore, suffice that the Fathers affirm some doctrine, but it is required that they affirm it to be revealed. And this they must teach either in express words or at least in equivalent ones, saying e. g. that the whole Church so believes, that the contrary opinion is heretical, that it is altogether necessary to embrace such a doctrine, etc. On the other hand, the opinion of the Fathers, even when consenting, is not safe, if they do not teach that the doctrine is revealed, professed by the Church, absolutely necessary. A fortiori, the testimony of the Fathers is not certain when, by opining, by doubting, by inquiring, they act as private doctors. You have a celebrated example in the chiliasm of several of the older Fathers, namely Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Commodianus, Sulpicius Severus. This opinion of theirs about the millennial kingdom is not safe, both because very many other Fathers reject it, and because the chiliasts themselves frankly confess that the opposite opinion does not contradict the faith.⁴

c) It is a certain argument of divine Tradition. Doctrines, namely, which are affirmed as revealed by the consensus of the Fathers, are by that very fact proved with infallible certainty to pertain to Tradition. And indeed to divine or divine-apostolic Tradition, i. e. to the deposit of faith handed down by God through the apostles, not to merely ecclesiastical traditions (namely, the precepts and institutions which took their beginning in the Church after the apostles), nor to human-apostolic traditions (which have their origin from the apostles themselves as the first pastors of the Church).

Proof. Our proposition is established invincibly by:

a) All Christian teachers. And first indeed the Fathers themselves, whom, however, we cite here only as historical witnesses. Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria: One will easily correct himself from his errors, "if he has examined the labors of the holy Fathers, who are celebrated by all on account of the rectitude and certainty of their dogmas and have merited the approbation of all; then he will diligently examine his own faith. For to all who are of sound mind this goal is set, that they follow their opinions, since they themselves, having filled their mind with the apostolic and evangelical tradition and having treated the doctrine of faith rightly and without stain and error, were lights in the world, holding the word of life."⁵ St. Vincent of Lérins: "It is surely necessary for all Catholics henceforth, who strive to prove themselves legitimate sons of mother Church, that they cleave to, be glued to, and die in the holy faith of the holy Fathers, and that they detest, abhor, attack, and persecute the profane novelties of the profane."⁶ Cassiodorus: "Let us follow with pious zeal the ways of understanding discovered by the labor of the Fathers ... Let us without doubt believe this to be divine; if anything dissonant or discordant with the rules of the Fathers should happen to be found, let us judge that it must be avoided."⁷

The scholastic theologians of the whole Middle Ages also trod the path of the Fathers. Thus St. Anselm of Canterbury, the father of scholastic theology, professes that in the exposition of Scripture he admits nothing "that does not cohere with the writings of the Catholic Fathers",⁸ and that several truths alone can be proved by the "invincible reasons of the holy Fathers after the apostles and evangelists ... without the authority of Scripture".⁹ Peter Lombard protests that the Book of Sentences follows the path of the Fathers: "In which [book] you will find the examples and the doctrine of the ancients ... But wherever our voice resounded with the voice of the Fathers, it has not departed from the paternal limits."¹⁰ According to St. Bonaventure the concordant documents of the Fathers are of the same firmness as the utterances of the Scriptures.¹¹ All the scholastics think likewise, indeed all the theologians of all ages, except the Protestants alone and the favorers of liberalism and modernism.

b) All the councils are of this mind, that they closely follow the doctrine of faith handed down by the Fathers. Concerning the First Council of Nicaea (325) St. Athanasius writes: "The bishops, not devising words for themselves, but having them from the Fathers, wrote down the testimonies."¹² The First Council of Constantinople (381) drove the Macedonians to stand by "the judgment of the Fathers, who flourished before those heresies which were in question were born".¹³ The Council of Ephesus (431) decreed: "It pleased God to decree nothing else to be believed by posterity, except what the sacred antiquity of the holy Fathers, agreeing with itself, has held."¹⁴ The Second Council of Constantinople (553): "We confess that we hold and preach the faith ..., which the holy Fathers confessed and explained."¹⁵ The Lateran Council of the year 649: "If anyone does not confess, according to the holy Fathers, properly and according to truth, all things which have been handed down and preached to the holy catholic and apostolic Church of God ... let him be condemned."¹⁶ The Fourth Council of Constantinople (869): "Willing to walk inoffensively along the equal and royal way of divine justice, we ought to retain the definitions and senses of the holy Fathers, as certain lamps always shining and illuminating our steps, which are according to God."¹⁷ Concerning the later councils there is no reason for us to speak.

c) The theological argument from the relation of the Fathers to the contemporary and subsequent magisterium of the Church. The Fathers grew together in an intimate relation with the contemporary magisterium of the Church. Most of them were bishops and therefore belonged to the then living magisterium; those, however, who were not bishops were consulted and approved by the bishops as the best interpreters of the faith. Therefore either the concordant doctrine of the Fathers was foreign to error, or the living magisterium itself erred. — Moreover, as is clear from what has been said (under a and b), the Fathers have cohered and still cohere in an intimate relation also with the subsequent magisterium of the Church. The living magisterium of all ages has pressed and presses the footprints of the Fathers, nor has it ever turned aside or turns aside from their consensus. Therefore either the consensus of the Fathers does not err, or the whole teaching Church errs. Since, however, the teaching Church, the principal organ of divine Tradition and the infallible rule of faith, cannot err, our proposition is surely established: The consensus of the Fathers on some doctrine as revealed is a certain argument of divine Tradition.

2. The authority of individual Fathers. Proposition: The testimony of individual Fathers in a matter of faith and morals is a probable argument of divine Tradition.

It is explained. The proposition is to be understood thus:

a) The testimony of individual Fathers. Individual Fathers, therefore, are presupposed, i. e. one or another only, or certainly not such a number of Fathers as could constitute a patristic consensus. Moreover, the testimony of the Fathers is presupposed, i. e. that the respective Fathers speak as witnesses of Tradition, not that as private doctors they bring forth their own subjective opinion. For if as witnesses they report the Tradition of the Church, they borrow a greater or lesser authority of the Church; but if as private doctors they put forward their own opinion, they are worth only as much as they prove. Wherefore the weight of witnesses is greater than that of doctors.¹⁸ That they, however, speak as witnesses and not from their own opinion, is evident, if they affirm this expressly or equivalently, if they appeal to the faith of the Church, if they reject the opposite doctrine as heretical, etc.

b) In a matter of faith and morals, i. e. in a matter which pertains to the object of the ecclesiastical magisterium. For in profane matters the Fathers have no greater authority than the Church itself; indeed they do not judge such matters from supernatural revelation, but from natural reason, following the opinions of the age and the scientific systems then in favor. Whence not even the consensus of the Fathers in merely philosophical, physical, mathematical matters, etc. is binding; therefore a fortiori the opinion of individual Fathers is not binding in these matters.

c) It is a probable argument of divine Tradition. The testimonies of individual Fathers do not provide a certain argument, since each single one is neither subjectively infallible nor a resounding voice of the whole living magisterium, the infallible organ of Tradition. Indeed, many Fathers erred in matters of faith, and scarcely one can be adduced who has not erred in some point. This notwithstanding, the testimony of individual Fathers provides a probable argument, and indeed the more probable, the greater the authority of the Father is. This force of individual testimony grows, if several Fathers consent, and the probability of the argument is increased the more the number and the weight of the witnesses is increased. On the other hand, the testimony of individual or of several Fathers is weakened or even entirely taken away, if other Fathers dissent.¹⁹

Proof. The proposition, thus understood, is readily established:

a) From the character of the Father. The Fathers, having regard to their antiquity, their learning, and, for the most part, their holiness, knew the revealed and handed-down truth in the highest degree, propagated it with all zeal, and defended it with a singular love, often undergoing the gravest hardships or sometimes even death ... Therefore of them that saying holds most fully: "Those skilled in an art are to be believed."

b) From the practice of the Church. The Church has received and receives the holy Fathers, even without regard to their consensus, with pious veneration, reverence, and devotion. St. Augustine writes of them: "God himself dispensed his stewards, faithful and in many respects most excellent, though few, through the diverse ages, the distances of times and places, as it pleases him and he judges expedient."²⁰ Leontius of Byzantium: "After the apostles and prophets God placed teachers in the Church according to the incomprehensible providence of the Holy Spirit, for the work of ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ."²¹ By the Second Council of Nicaea (787) there is extolled "the doctrine of our holy Fathers, that is, the Tradition of the holy catholic Church"²² The Fourth Council of Constantinople (869) declares: "Therefore we profess to keep and preserve the rules which ... have been handed down by any God-speaking Father and teacher of the Church."²³ Pius IX laments that by certain moderns there is not had "that reverence for the holy Fathers which the canons of the councils prescribe and which the most splendid lights of the Church altogether merit"²⁴ Pius X binds Catholic theologians by oath: "I sincerely receive the doctrine of faith, transmitted to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers, always in the same sense and always in the same meaning ... I most firmly retain the faith of the Fathers and will retain it to the last breath of life."²⁵