342. Since it has now been established that Christian revelation is comprised also in traditions, we now inquire into the monuments in which those traditions are found, and by whose help they have both been conserved and can be known by us. First of all, no one fails to see the congruity and moral necessity of such monuments. For although, as we hinted (n. 329) and showed more fully elsewhere, Christ the Lord instituted an authentic, living, and perennial magisterium as the intrinsic and proper medium of conserving and propagating His doctrine, nevertheless the Apostles and disciples of Christ, when occasion was given and with the Holy Spirit inspiring, committed part of it to writings. In a similar way, while the doctrine and institutions of Christ were being propagated from apostolic succession through the continual magisterium, as the occasion arose they were also committed to monuments. Nor, considered in view of the wisdom of God and ordinary providence, could the matter have happened otherwise. For on the one hand, the promised assistance of the Holy Spirit to the apostolic magisterium by no means excludes the help of human means; but on the other hand, in Christian society, which is a society of men, circumstances could not be lacking in which there would be issued public professions of faith, solemn judgments of the teaching Church, defenses of doctrine under attack, catecheses for the instruction of peoples, declarations for a fuller understanding of doctrine, etc. All these and similar things are monuments left to us, from which it is permitted to know what Christian faith and discipline were in past times; just as they are a connatural aid of conserving tradition and instruments of doctrine for the magisterium itself, which is always living.
343. Now monuments of this sort, as is plain of itself, can be of manifold kind; but chiefly they are divided into written and unwritten. Certainly Christian art, even from the first centuries, exhibits many sculpted, painted, and architectural monuments in crypts, shrines, chairs, and so forth, which place before the eyes the life, faith, and ecclesiastical discipline of those times. You have testimony of this matter in the distinguished and most learned work of Father Raphael Garrucci, S.J. (History of Christian Art in the First Eight Centuries). Yet the principal monuments are written ones, since institutions and doctrines can be reported more distinctly and fully. Compare Cardinal Franzelin (On Tradition, etc., chapter 13).
344. But among written monuments the chief place is held by the definitions and judgments which emanate directly from the living and authentic magisterium itself, under the assistance of the Holy Spirit. But nothing must be said here concerning these, since below we shall establish the infallibility of the teaching Church. Therefore here we inquire into the authority of the Holy Fathers, insofar as they are doctors and witnesses of tradition, by adhering to whom, as the Seventh Council speaks (in the definition concerning Sacred Images), we follow the royal road. Concerning them, in the name of the Greeks, St. Basil writes (Homily 29): “I follow the faith of the Fathers. In this certitude also the martyrs themselves who are situated here obtained crowns. Therefore accuse me under this name”; and in the name of the Latins, St. Jerome says (in the epitaph of Paula): “I teach what I have learned, not from myself, that is, from presumption, the worst teacher, but from illustrious men of the Church.”
345. But first of all, what comes under the name Father of the Church? This appellation has its origin from an analogy drawn from natural paternity. For just as in the order of nature that man is called father who generated another, and upon whom consequently there falls the care of the right instruction of the one whom he generated, so he is called a Father of the Church who has generated sons of the Church and has rightly instructed them. But since sons of this sort are generated through faith, and right instruction chiefly demands salutary doctrine, it is easily understood why eminent doctrine enters in a certain principal way into the concept of Father of the Church. This idea the Apostle exhibits, who calls the Corinthians, first instructed by him in the Gospel, “my dearest sons” (1 Corinthians 4.14); for he adds (verse 15): “In Christ Jesus, through the Gospel, I have begotten you.” He inculcates this same idea when writing to the Galatians (4.19): “My little children, whom I bring forth again, until Christ be formed in you.” St. Irenaeus beautifully unfolded these same things (Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 41, n. 2), saying: “Since therefore all things were made by God, and the devil made himself the cause of apostasy for himself, Scripture justly has always called those who persevere in apostasy sons of the devil and evil angels. For son, as someone before us also said, is understood in two ways: one is reckoned a son according to nature, another according to that which he has been made, although there is a difference between one born and one made. For the former was born from him; the latter was made by him, whether according to creation, or according to the magisterium of doctrine. For he who has been taught by another in word is called a son of the one teaching, and that one is his father.” Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, book 1, n. 1), St. Augustine (Against Julian, book 1, chapter 7, n. 31), and St. Jerome (to Principia, letter 140, otherwise 65) have similar things.
346. Thus far, however, the concept of Father of the Church has not yet been plainly defined; since, according to the things thus far set forth, all Christian writers conspicuous for doctrine could be called Fathers, although in reality they are by no means held as such. Therefore, that we may define the matter more strictly, we can use the description of Mabillon, who says (Preface to the works of St. Bernard, section 2, n. 23): “The Church calls those Fathers whom sanctity, doctrine, and antiquity commend; doctrine, I say, adhering to Scripture and tradition rather than to philosophical reasons.” Or it can also be said more fully that the Fathers of the Church are “men who are eminent in doctrine, flourish in sanctity, are vigorous in antiquity, and enjoy the express or tacit designation of the Church.” By explaining this description through its parts, we shall present a clear and full concept of the Fathers of the Church. Hence: 1) Those men are called Fathers who are eminent in doctrine; for the name of father is a name of excellence and authority, and therefore it does not belong to all who teach in whatever way, but only to those who, being excellent in that office, acquire authority for themselves. But it is understood that here the matter properly concerns Christian doctrine, which they received from the Apostles or their successors, and of which they were solicitous guardians, unconquered defenders, faithful expositors, and illustrious preachers. This is not always to be made clear from the amplitude and erudition of their works, but sometimes from simple and orthodox doctrine joined with antiquity, as happens, for example, in the writings of some of the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists. 2) Those men are called Fathers who flourish in sanctity; and this certainly supposes and comprehends also communion with the Catholic Church even to the end. In reality, just as it belongs to a carnal father to instruct his children rightly not only by word but also by example, so it belongs to the Fathers of the Church to generate and instruct sons for Jesus Christ by doctrine and example. It is indeed true that eminence of doctrine can be separated from sanctity; but the sublime doctrine of faith can scarcely be obtained without sanctity. For sanctity joins more intimately with God, the source of all wisdom; it renders men more attentive in the consideration of faith and discipline; it instills an ardent love of the Church and of sincere doctrine. Hence it conciliates to the doctrine itself an authority so great that it certainly does not belong to a name destitute of sanctity. 3) Those men are called Fathers who are vigorous in antiquity. The idea of father indeed contains a certain priority; but that priority, according to the variety of orders, will be different. Hence either a distinguished or a relative antiquity is necessary in order that someone be held as a Father. St. Thomas also suggests this (on chapter 4 of First Corinthians, lecture 3), weighing that saying of the Apostle: “For if you have ten thousand pedagogues in Christ, yet not many Fathers.” There the Holy Doctor says: “A father is he who first generates; but a pedagogue is he who nourishes and educates one already born”; and he teaches that the Apostle “calls himself their father because he first preached the Gospel to them.” In our time they almost commonly judge the extreme limit of the period of the Fathers to be the twelfth century, and by nearly unanimous consent they call St. Bernard the last among the Fathers. Yet the ancients called by the name Father all their predecessors distinguished by integrity of faith, doctrine, and sanctity (compare Council of Ephesus, Act 1); indeed there were not lacking some who were adorned with this name a few years after death (compare Council of Chalcedon, Acts 2 and 4). Thus certainly St. Cyril of Alexandria, who died in the year 444, was numbered among the Fathers in the year 451. 4) Those men are called Fathers who enjoy the express or tacit designation of the Church. For the whole deposit of revelation, to be guarded holily, has been committed to the Church; therefore, just as it belongs to her to declare the certain and fixed canon of sacred books, so it is her right and office to designate fitting witnesses and safe teachers of divine tradition. Hence the Church has always used this right: both in solemn acts and definitions by consulting some as Holy Fathers, or by bringing forward their authority as such, or even by expressly calling them probable or approved Fathers (compare the letter of St. Hormisdas, letter 70, to Possessor the Bishop; Council of Ephesus, Act 1; Chalcedon, Act 1; Third Constantinople, Act 10; Second Nicaea, Acts 4 and 6); and by never referring among the number of Fathers certain Christian writers distinguished by antiquity and doctrine, who therefore were never held as Fathers; and by expressly rejecting one or another of these as a Father, as Tertullian and Lactantius (Decree of Pope Gelasius in the Roman Synod, year 494), and also Eusebius of Caesarea (Second Council of Nicaea, Act 5). But we said “express or tacit,” because in reality the designation of the Church can be had in diverse ways. Hence those are to be held as Fathers who are alleged as such in ecumenical Councils; who have been recognized or proposed as such by the Supreme Pontiffs in public monuments; whose writings once publicly used to be read after Sacred Scripture, which, for example, is established concerning St. Clement of Rome (compare Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 3, chapter 16), St. Polycarp (compare St. Jerome, On Illustrious Men, chapter 17), and St. Ephraem the Syrian (St. Jerome, same place, chapter 115); who are counted by some distinguished Father, in dogmatic inquiry, among the Holy Fathers for manifesting the doctrine of faith, etc. Compare Fessler (Institutions of Patrology, tome 1, chapter 1, section 12).
347. Therefore it is established for us that someone is a Holy Father of the Church from the express or tacit designation of the Church; but the Church, as Footnote 1. The same distinguished author (section 11) observes: “Moreover it is plain of itself that it is not required in a Holy Father that he be a Bishop or Presbyter, although most are found in this order, since the office of teaching in the Church was properly committed by Christ to these. But since laymen too are not wholly excluded from the office of teaching, and the Holy Spirit sometimes descends abundantly also upon laymen, even laymen who teach excellently according to the judgment of the whole Church, and are furnished with the other gifts of a Holy Father, can be referred among the Holy Fathers, for example, St. Prosper of Aquitaine.” is manifest from usage, requires for this designation the first three qualities which we have described. But from these the specific notion of an Ecclesiastical Writer and of a Doctor of the Church is easily taken; for insofar as they fall short of one or another of the aforesaid conditions required to constitute a Father, while retaining the others, they are Doctors or Ecclesiastical Writers. Thus those who are distinguished by doctrine and antiquity, but either did not persevere in the communion of the Church or did not attain a more perfect form of sanctity, are properly called not Fathers but Ecclesiastical Writers. By one or another reason Tatian, Tertullian, Origen, Arnobius, Lactantius, Eusebius, Rufinus, and others are counted in this number. “It is truly a great matter,” says Vincent of Lerins (Commonitorium, chapter 17), “useful for learning and necessary for recollection, which again and again we must illustrate and inculcate by heaps of examples, so that all truly Catholics may know that they must receive doctors with the Church, not abandon the faith of the Church with the doctors.” But those are called Doctors of the Church who are indeed distinguished by doctrine and sanctity, but lack antiquity. It must be noted here that the title of Doctor requires a more excellent and more ample doctrine than the name Father. Hence the Church has not adorned all Fathers with the prerogative of Doctor. By the public suffrage of the Church, the following are held as Doctors of the Church: St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Gregory the Great (these are also called the great doctors of the western church, according to the number of the four Evangelists), St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. John Chrysostom (these are the four great doctors of the eastern church), St. Leo the Great, St. Peter Chrysologus, St. Isidore of Seville, St. Peter Damian, St. Ildephonsus of Toledo, St. Anselm of Canterbury, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and St. Francis de Sales.
348. With these things set forth beforehand for understanding the matter concerning the notion of Father of the Church, before we propose the question concerning their authority, it is necessary to distinguish a twofold kind of doctrine in their writings, namely profane doctrine, which is referred to human sciences or arts, and sacred doctrine, pertaining to faith and morals. But the doctrine of faith and morals comprehends not only those things which are properly revealed and consequently to be believed by divine faith, but also those things which, on account of their necessary connection with revealed things, constitute theological truths. Moreover, all admit the rule which Canus hands down (On Places, book 7, chapter 2, n. 2) regarding the first kind of doctrine: “The authority of the saints, whether of few or of many, when it is brought to bear upon those faculties which are contained by the natural light, does not supply certain arguments; but it has as much force as reason consonant with nature will have persuaded.” Wherefore the question concerning the authority of the Fathers regards only sacred doctrine, whether they handed it down by interpreting the Scriptures, or by defending the faith under attack, or by instructing the people in things to be believed and done.
349. What, therefore, is this authority? There are two excesses here. For 1) Luther and his followers, by denying tradition, make little of the authority of the Fathers. “Thus it happens,” says Luther (in the book against the King of England), “that I cry out: Gospel, Gospel, Christ, Christ; they answer: Fathers, Fathers; usage, usage; statutes, statutes. But when I say that the Fathers, usage, and statutes have often erred, and that a matter of this sort ought to be fortified by a firmer and more certain authority, but that Christ cannot err. Here they are more mute than fish… as Scripture says: like deaf asps they stop their ears, lest they hear the voice of the charmer. Or again they give me this, which always floats on the surface like spittle: Ambrose says so; are you more learned than Ambrose?” etc. Among some Protestants, however, the Fathers began to be held in honor, especially those of the first four centuries; several of their writers indeed expressly affirm this, and others show it sufficiently by using the testimonies of the Fathers. 2) The Jansenists, on the contrary, seemed to make so much of the authority even of one Father, especially Augustine, that they preferred it to the authority of the Church herself. Hence proposition 30, condemned by Alexander VIII (December 7, 1690): “Where anyone has found a doctrine clearly founded in Augustine, he can absolutely hold and teach it, without looking to any Bull of the Pontiff.” St. Thomas had already established the contradictory doctrine (2-2, question 10, article 12), saying: “The very doctrine of the Catholic Doctors has authority from the Church; hence one must stand more by the authority of the Church than by the authority either of Augustine, or Jerome, or any Doctor whatsoever.”
350. With these excesses rejected, in order that the true doctrine concerning the authority of the Fathers with regard to sacred doctrine may be established, it is useful to propose diverse hypotheses here. Footnote 1. “Whether something is of this sort [pertaining to sacred doctrine] or not,” Schrader rightly observes (On the Theological Source of Witnesses, page 290), “must be judged not against the mind of the Fathers, but, as far as can be done, also according to their doctrine or opinion. And this is the caution by which the rules or conclusions must be corrected which Melchior Canus (On Theological Places, book 7, chapter 3) established for defining the authority of the Fathers. But by those things by which, in his fifth conclusion, Cajetan is refuted by him as detracting from the Fathers when they agree concerning the sense of Scripture, he himself must similarly be amended, when in his first conclusion he detracts from the Fathers when they agree concerning dogmas of philosophy, as he says, since without doubt there are such dogmas of philosophy without which the very dogmas of theology, concerning which he himself protects the authority of the Fathers, cannot be conserved and defended as they ought. Hence the same man must be amended when detracting from the Fathers when they judge concerning the character and quality of things which they refer to the end and he to reason or philosophy; and he must also be amended when he too lightly denies that the immaculate conception of the Virgin is taught by the Scriptures and apostolic tradition, and therefore that it cannot be declared as a dogma of faith; and when he too readily affirms the lapses and dissensions of several ancient Authors of the Church from the common doctrine of others.” Compare also Cardinal Franzelin (On Tradition, etc., page 182 ff., Rome, 1875). And first we can consider the opinion of one or another Father, separated from consensus; and then “they indeed deserve as much veneration as the antiquity, doctrine, and sanctity of each of them demands; nevertheless their authority is not such that, especially if grave reasons demand it, it would be a sin to depart from their opinions, always with due reverence.” Certainly infallibility has not been promised to individual Fathers; nor, when individuals are considered separately from consensus, do they appear to be clothed, as it were, with the infallibility of the Church. Hence from the fact itself it is established that someone sometimes erred; compare St. Augustine concerning St. Cyprian (On Baptism, book 1, chapter 18). Nor did the Fathers themselves think otherwise. Thus St. Augustine (Letter 148 to Fortunatianus, n. 15) writes: “For neither ought we to hold the disputations of any men whatsoever, although Catholic and praiseworthy, as canonical Scriptures, so that it would not be permitted to us, while preserving the honor which is owed to those men, to disapprove and reject something in their writings, if perhaps we have known that they thought otherwise than the truth has it, whether understood with divine help by others or by ourselves. Such am I in the writings of others; such do I wish the understanders of my writings to be.” And (On the Trinity, book 3, Proem): “Indeed, since in all my writings I desire not only a pious reader, but also a free corrector, much especially in these, where would that the very greatness of the question could have as many discoverers as it has contradictors. Nevertheless, just as I do not wish my reader to be devoted to me, so I do not wish my corrector to be devoted to himself. Let the former not love me more than Catholic truth. As I say to him, do not serve my writings as if they were canonical Scriptures, but in those, when you have found what you did not believe, believe without hesitation; but in these, do not firmly retain what you did not hold as certain unless you have understood it as certain; so I say to the latter, do not correct my writings from your own opinion or contention, but from divine reading or unshaken reason.” And, omitting the rest (Letter 82 to Jerome, n. 3): “Other books besides the Scriptures I read in such a way that, however much they may excel in sanctity and doctrine, I do not think something true for this reason, that they themselves thought so; but because, either through those canonical authors or by probable reason, they were able to persuade me that they do not abhor the truth.” St. Jerome often has similar things; and St. Thomas (1 p., question 1, article 8, ad 2) writes for this same reason: “Theology uses the authorities of canonical Scripture properly, arguing from necessity. But the authorities of other Doctors of the Church it uses as if arguing from its own, but probably. For our faith rests upon revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets, who wrote the canonical books, but not upon revelation, if there was any, made to other doctors.”
351. Secondly, we can consider the hypothesis in which several Fathers affirm or deny something, while the others protest against it. Then there can be a greater or lesser probability for one side or the other, but from neither can an irrefutable argument be taken, so far as concerns the authority of the Fathers. We say, so far as concerns the authority of the Fathers, because after the disagreement, once the question has been clarified, a definition of the Church and a subsequent consensus could be added; in which case the truth would already be established with certainty (compare On the Infused Virtues, n. 521 ff.; 542 ff.). The matter understood in this way is evident of itself. Only this must be noted here: disagreement among the Fathers is not easily to be admitted; but, on account of the authority which is in them and the reverence which is owed to them, we must endeavor, as much as possible, to reconcile them. The Fathers themselves taught this by word and example. Thus St. Ambrose (letter 48, n. 4) says: “If a word gives offense, ask about the power of the profession… even a mind that is not doubtful shades and defends doubtful speech from a fall.” And St. Augustine, that he might defend St. Hilary, wrote (On the Trinity, book 6, chapter 10, n. 11): “Someone, wishing to indicate very briefly the proper things of each person in the Trinity, said: eternity in the Father, Form in the Image, Use in the Gift. And because he was a man of no mediocre authority in the treatment of the Scriptures and the assertion of the faith, for Hilary placed this in his books, having searched as far as I am able the hidden understanding of these words… I think that in the term eternity he followed nothing except that the Father does not have a Father [principle] from whom He is.” St. Athanasius did the same with regard to Dionysius of Alexandria, St. Basil with regard to Gregory Thaumaturgus, etc.; examples of these occur in several special questions in theology.
352. Thirdly, we can consider the Fathers agreeing in some matter pertaining to sacred doctrine; and then their authority is irrefutable. Since this is the chief point in the matter of which we are treating, and therefore must be expressly asserted, it will be useful to define the same thing accurately. The consensus of all the Fathers, or unanimous consensus, must be taken not mathematically but morally. “Then,” says Cardinal Perrone (Reply to the King of England), “the unanimous consensus of the Fathers, cumulatively proved, must be sustained when the most eminent men of the individual nations agree in the assertion of some matter, so that among them no one who always was orthodox and always adhered to the orthodox dissents.” Yet the matter itself can be proposed a little more fully in this way: the consensus of the Fathers can be known and demonstrated directly and immediately, or indirectly and by inference. In the first way it is shown if from the writings of morally all of them express testimonies are brought forward, so that from this it is established that one opinion concerning some matter adhered in them. But this method renders the use of the Fathers more difficult; hence there is another way, by which from the testimonies of some that have been brought forward the consensus of the others is legitimately inferred. This happens in three ways: 1) if several eminent Fathers agree in the same point, with the rest not protesting, especially if they wrote in diverse places and diverse ages; 2) indeed, sometimes even the testimony of a few Fathers is irrefutable, namely if from all the circumstances it is certainly established that they report the common faith of the Church; 3) finally, the explored consensus even of the western Fathers alone suffices, although when this is had, as is also historically established, there is never present such a dissent of the eastern Fathers as could weaken it. Therefore we undertake to demonstrate these things, in order to vindicate the authority of the Fathers. Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved. PROPOSITION XVI. 1. The morally unanimous consensus of the Fathers in matters of faith and morals exhibits an irrefutable testimony of divine tradition. Nor is it necessary that that consensus always be demonstrated directly and immediately; but it is excellently inferred: 2. from the explored suffrage of all the western Fathers; 3. from the testimony of several who are distinguished by doctrine and reputation, who flourished in diverse ages, with the rest not protesting; 4. indeed, even from the testimony of a few, if it is given in those circumstances such that it is evident that it reports the common faith of the Church.
353. The first part is proved. I. We suppose here what we shall expressly demonstrate in its own place, that according to the promises of Christ, from the perennial assistance of the Holy Spirit there is present in the Church the charism of infallibility, both active in the teaching Church and passive in the whole Church. But if the unanimous suffrage of the Fathers in matters of faith and morals could be false, that twofold infallibility would fail. Therefore. The minor is proved. 1) The Church extends her magisterium to the faithful especially through the works of the Fathers; therefore if all the Fathers taught something false, the teaching Church herself would seem to lead us into errors. At least the Church could not fail to know that all the Fathers were teaching error; if she did not correct it, she would certainly fail in the office of guarding the deposit. It can indeed be understood that one or another of the Fathers errs, and yet the Church does not yet reprove their error; for the faithful would be taught by others, and there would never be universal error in the Church. But if all err, and the Church does not contradict, all are easily led into error, especially if the Fathers present themselves as witnesses of the doctrine of the Church herself. Wherefore Cardinal Franzelin skillfully observes (On Tradition, etc., thesis 14): “This [the consensus of which we are treating] surely is the same as if the universal Church, with all her pastors and doctors, martyrs and faithful people, in her connection with the Apostles, and through the Apostles with the preaching of Christ Himself, were placed before us through the course of the centuries, always in homogeneous progress, testifying to her faith and to the understanding of the faith.” 2) From these things it is understood that passive infallibility also perishes in the Church, or that the Church falls away from the faith, if the Fathers can unanimously teach error. For the principle from which passive infallibility proceeds, according to the institution of Christ, is the teaching Church endowed with active infallibility. Therefore if this latter fails, it is necessary that the former fail also. In reality, the faithful people receives instruction from the principal doctors, such as the Fathers are; therefore if they unanimously taught something erroneous, with the Church not contradicting, it would be led into error. 3) These things are confirmed from the disposition of divine providence, which according to the necessities of the times gave principal luminaries who would spread light in the Church. St. Augustine speaks of this disposition of God (Against Julian, book 2, chapter 10, n. 37), saying: “God Himself, through diverse ages and distances of times and places, as it pleases Him and as He judges expedient, dispenses His few dispensers, faithful and more excellent than many.” And he had said (n. 35): “To such an extent are darkness said to be light, and light darkness, that Pelagius, Coelestius, and Julian see, and Hilary, Gregory, and Ambrose are blind? But whatever kind of man you are, yet because you are a man, I seem to myself to see your shame (if indeed all hope of health is not dead in you), and in a certain way I hear your voice. You answer: Far be it that I should dare to think or say that those men are blind. Therefore weigh their judgments.” And Leontius of Byzantium (Against Nestorius, book 1, n. 35): “After the Apostles and Prophets, God placed doctors in the Church according to the incomprehensible providence of the Holy Spirit, for the work of ministry unto the edification of the body of Christ. Wherefore he who does not receive those Fathers, who are clear and celebrated in the Church, plainly resists the ordering and constitution of God.” St. Jerome has similar things (on the Letter to the Ephesians, book 2, chapter 4).
354. II. Christian society, whether theoretically or practically, has always asserted for the unanimous consensus of the Fathers that authority which we vindicate here. For it used that consensus to settle questions of faith; it expressly affirmed its peremptory force; and, with an anathema proclaimed, it sanctioned that no one should turn aside from the common judgment of the Fathers. St. Athanasius testifies (Letter to the Africans, n. 6) that the First Council of Nicaea used the word homoousion “relying on the testimony of the Fathers.” The Council of Ephesus (Act 1) says: “It pleased God that nothing else be decreed for posterity to be believed except what sacred antiquity, agreeing with itself, of the Holy Fathers has held.” The Council of Chalcedon (Act 5) issued the definition of faith “following the Holy Fathers”; and in the Address of the Council to Marcian the Emperor, the Bishops are said to have been persuaded “that, when ambiguity of the question had arisen, it was permitted to adapt the confession to the interpretations of the Fathers… and to teach that we have brought forward a mind in no way discordant from their understanding, but that we use these as witnesses for the confirmation of our faith”; and it is added that he “who depraves the understanding of the Fathers is guilty of prevarication.” The Second Council of Constantinople (Collation 3) declares that it holds the faith “which the Holy Fathers confessed and explained.” The Third Council of Constantinople (Act 18), “having followed without offense the right path of the holy and probable [approved] Fathers, and defining consonantly with them, confesses” the right faith. The Second Council of Nicaea (Act 1) prescribes that this anathema be pronounced by Basil the penitent: “Those who contemn the doctrines of the Holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, and who make excuses and boast the words of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, saying that unless we were sufficiently instructed from the Old and New Testament we would not follow the traditions of the Holy Fathers and of the Catholic Church, let them be anathema.” The Fourth Council of Constantinople (canon 1) says: “In order that we may hold the right and royal way of divine justice without the offense of error, the decrees of the Holy Fathers, as certain unextinguished torches always shining, must be followed.” The Lateran Council under Martin I (Consultation 5) defines that “whoever has not received in word and mind the Venerable Fathers, and all things which were set forth by them for the orthodox faith, is condemned and alien to the holy Church of God.” The Second Council of Lyons (canon 1) and the Council of Florence (Definition of Faith), “with testimonies brought forward from the divine Scriptures and very many authorities of the Holy Doctors of East and West, finally agreed and consented unanimously into the same judgment.” The Council of Trent (Proem of session 7) states that “the true and sound doctrine, which Jesus Christ, the author and consummator of our faith, taught, the Apostles handed down, and the Catholic Church, with the Holy Spirit suggesting, has perpetually retained, adhering to the consensus of the Fathers”; and (session 4), as we saw, it forbids “anyone to dare to interpret Sacred Scripture against the unanimous sense of the Holy Fathers.” This very thing the Vatican Council renewed. Hence Pius IX rightly noted in the books of Gunther (Brief to the Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne, 1857) that he “did not have for the Holy Fathers that reverence which the canons of the Councils prescribe, and which the most splendid lights of the Church altogether deserve”; and (Brief to the Bishop of Breslau, March 30, 1857) he noted that Gunther “neither sufficiently understood how greatly one must defer to the venerable authority of the most holy Fathers, and with what zeal one must beware lest, from love of profane novelty, their safe footsteps be deserted and very grave errors be spread.”
355. III. Above we already indicated that the Fathers themselves made very much of the consensus of the preceding Fathers, and invoked it for routing heresies. Therefore here, to confirm the matter, we shall add one or another testimony. St. Augustine (Against Julian, book 2, chapter 10, n. 37) writes: “These are bishops, learned, grave, holy, most keen defenders of truth against talkative vanities; in their reason, erudition, and liberty, the three things which you assigned to a good judge, you cannot find what you may despise. If an episcopal Synod were gathered from the whole world, it would be wonderful if so many such men could easily sit there. For these men were not of one time, but God Himself dispenses His few dispensers, faithful and more excellent than many, through diverse ages and distances of times and places, as it pleases Him and as He judges expedient. You see these, therefore, gathered from different times and regions, from East and West, not in a place to which men are compelled to sail, but in a book which can sail to men. By as much as these would have been more desirable judges for you if you held the Catholic faith, by so much are they more terrible to you because you attack the Catholic faith, which they sucked in with milk, which they took in as food, whose milk and food they ministered to little and great, which against enemies, even you not yet born then, from whom you are now revealed, they defended most openly and most strongly. With such planters, waterers, builders, shepherds, and nourishers after the Apostles the holy Church grew. Therefore it shuddered at the profane voices of your novelty… it abhorred the snares of your dogma creeping in, and, as the head of a serpent, trampled, crushed, and cast it away.” Vincent of Lerins (Commonitorium, chapter 2): “We shall follow antiquity in such a way if we in no way depart from those meanings which it is manifest that our holy elders and Fathers celebrated”; and (chapter 3): “What if in antiquity itself the error of two or three men, or certainly of one city or even of some province, is detected? Then he will altogether take care that, if there are any decrees of the universal Church from antiquity, he place them before the temerity or ignorance of a few. What if something of such a kind should emerge that nothing of this sort is found? Then he will give his attention to consulting and interrogating the opinions of the elders compared with one another, of those only who, although in diverse times and places, nevertheless remained in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, and stood forth as approved teachers; and whatever he has known not only one or two, but all equally, with one and the same consensus… to have written and taught, let him understand that this also is to be believed by himself without any doubt.” St. Basil (letter 52, n. 1): “Not to stand upon the footsteps of the Fathers, nor to consider their voice preferable to one’s own opinion, is a matter worthy of reproof, as full of arrogance.” In order that the force and method of this and the preceding argument may be perceived, let the observations which we premised to the second argument of the preceding thesis (n. 330) be recalled.
356. The second part is proved. I. There is a solid foundation for inferring from the consensus of the western Fathers also the consensus of the eastern Fathers. But, from what has been proved, the unanimous consensus of the Fathers supplies an irrefutable argument for the existence of divine tradition. Therefore. The major is proved. 1) It is historically established that in matters of faith and morals the eastern Fathers agree with the western; therefore, if in some question the consensus of the western Fathers is demonstrated, the consensus also of the eastern Fathers is rightly inferred. To clarify the antecedent, first of all there belong the words of St. Gregory the Great (Letters, book 10, letter 35, to Eulogius of Alexandria): “To him, therefore, long before I received your writings, I responded against that same heresy [of the Agnoetae], the things which afterward I found in the letter of your holiness; and I rendered great thanks to Almighty God, because concerning all the inquiries, the Roman [whom he calls western] and Greek Fathers, whose followers we are, spoke with one spirit. For in many things I found that same letter of yours so, as if I were reading the writings of the Latin Fathers against the aforesaid heresy.” To this could be added what Pope Celestine has (letter 13 to Bishop Maximian), Felix III (synodical letter to all the presbyters of Constantinople and Bithynia), Agatho (letter to the Emperor against the Monothelites, which stands forth in the Sixth Council, Act 4), Gregory II to Leo the Isaurian, etc. Compare Habert (Theology of the Greeks concerning Grace, book 1, chapter 1, n. 4). 2) The eastern and western Church constituted one Church; but the Church is one, especially by unity of faith; therefore they had one faith. But if, when all the western Fathers asserted something in a matter of faith and morals, the eastern Fathers had commonly resisted, this unity of faith would have been lacking. Therefore. 3) In the West is the principle and center of unity, namely the successor of Peter, under whose care and vigilance the western Fathers were more immediately placed. But it is altogether incredible that, if the Fathers asserted something against faith or morals, when there was danger that the error would first pervade all the westerners, the principle and center of unity would not resist.
357. II. These same things can be confirmed by authority. St. Augustine (Against Julian, book 1, chapter 4, n. 12) first says: “Again I admonish you, again I ask you, look upon so many and such great defenders and doctors of the Catholic Church; see upon whom you heap so grave and so nefarious an injury.” Then (n. 13) he adds: “Or do you therefore think them to be contemned, because they are all of the western Church, and no bishop of the East has been commemorated by us among them? What then shall we do, since they are Greeks, not Latins? I think that that part of the world ought to suffice you, in which the Lord willed to crown with a most glorious martyrdom the first of His Apostles. If you had wished to hear Blessed Innocent presiding over that Church, you would already then have stripped your dangerous youth from Pelagian snares. For what could that holy man answer to the African councils, except what the apostolic See and the Roman Church with the rest [eastern and western] has held perseveringly from antiquity?” And (n. 14) he adds: “Therefore there is no reason why you should appeal to the bishops of the East, because they too certainly are Christians, and that faith is one in both parts of the earth, because that faith too is Christian.” Bessarion in the Council of Florence (Dogmatic Oration, chapter 4) asserted the same: “And according to my judgment, both the eastern and the western Fathers spoke clearly and manifestly, and handed down to us the truth of the faith. And one could easily, using the authorities of either part, by these alone conclude the proposed question. And this a little later, if God grants it, we shall prove. Yet let it be conceded that the eastern Fathers did not speak so clearly, nor so expressly, concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, as did the western Fathers. What therefore must be done? Plainly nothing else than that, since the western Fathers have most openly preached this faith, the eastern Fathers also must be thought to say this same thing… For the same Spirit who spoke in those spoke also in these.” George Scholarius proved the matter in the orations held in the same Council, and Joseph, Bishop of Methone, in the refutation of Mark of Ephesus. Compare Cardinal du Perron (Reply to the King of Great Britain, tome 3, page 648) and de Rubeis (On Original Sin, chapter 20, n. 4).
358. The third part is proved. I. From, as it were, the nature of the thing. For 1) it seems incredible that several doctors, distinguished by doctrine and sanctity, through diverse ages and diverse places should think one and the same thing, unless it truly pertains to sacred doctrine. To this point belong those words of St. Augustine (Against Julian, book 1, chapter 6, n. 22): “There are other things in which sometimes even the most learned and best defenders of the Catholic rule do not agree among themselves, while the structure of faith is preserved, and one says something better and truer concerning one matter than another. But this matter, about which we now treat, pertains to the very foundations of faith.” 2) Indeed, it is impossible that Fathers, several in number, especially if they are distinguished, should assert something pertaining to faith or morals, with the rest not protesting, without all the faithful being led into error, and the Pastors themselves altogether failing in the office of guarding the deposit. But this is impossible. Therefore. History itself is witness that the others protested whenever some distinguished Doctor taught error, as is established, for example, in the case of St. Cyprian; just as it is established that they protested whenever novelty arose. Wherefore Vincent of Lerins says (Commonitorium, book 1, n. 9): “To announce something to Catholic Christians besides that which they received has never been lawful, nowhere is lawful, and never will be lawful.”
359. II. The same thing can be confirmed by authority. Vincent of Lerins (Commonitorium, n. 29) exhibits the rule which the Fathers of Ephesus followed: “We used the example of the holy Council which was celebrated almost three years ago in Asia at Ephesus… where, when there was discussion about making rules of faith, lest perhaps some profane novelty should creep in there in the manner of the perfidy of Ariminum, it seemed to all the priests, who had assembled there to the number of almost two hundred, most Catholic, most faithful, and best to do this: that the opinions of the Holy Fathers should be brought into the midst.” He reports (n. 30) the names of those Fathers whose testimonies were recited, and concludes: “These then are all those who at Ephesus, in the sacred number of the decalogue, were produced as teachers, counselors, witnesses, and judges; holding whose doctrine, following whose counsel, believing whose testimony, obeying whose judgment, that blessed Synod pronounced concerning the rules of faith without weariness, presumption, and favor. Although a much larger number of elders could have been employed, it was not necessary, because neither by the multitude of witnesses, etc.” St. Augustine (Against Julian, book 1, chapter 1, n. 3): “I do not indeed promise that I shall gather the opinions of all concerning this matter, nor all the opinions of those whom I shall commemorate, because it is too long and I do not judge it to be necessary; but I shall set down a few things of a few men, by which nevertheless our contradictors may be compelled to blush and yield, if any fear of God or shame before men in them has overcome so great an evil of obstinacy.” Then, after bringing forward the testimonies of certain Fathers, he says (chapter 5, n. 20): “Can Pelagius and Coelestius have so much power with you that from the rising of the sun even to its setting, so many (they are not all) and such great doctors and defenders of the Catholic faith, ancient and close to our age, sleeping and remaining, you dare not only to desert, but even to call Manicheans? I wonder if this could ever proceed from your mouth, although the perversity of your error compels you to cry it out. But it is wonderful if in the face of a man there is so great an interval between forehead and tongue that in this cause the forehead does not restrain the tongue.” Compare also what the Holy Doctor has (book 3, chapter 17, n. 32). Footnote 1. From these things it is evident that some Protestants contend altogether undeservedly that controversial dogmas must be proved from testimonies of the Fathers of the first centuries. Petavius expressly pursues this error; appealing to the Council of Ephesus, and referring to Cyprian as first in time among the rest for establishing the dogma concerning God born from the Virgin, he adds (On the Incarnation, book 14, chapter 15): “Now I would like this, that the adversaries answer me whether they think that that Synod, because it could bring forward no supporters of its decree from the earlier centuries, summoned more recent men and those who had died a few years before it, or that, although it could name others more ancient, it was content with these more recent men as being suitable. Whichever of these they say, they will both help our cause and make their own worse. For if there was no Doctor of the Church in those first centuries who would make faith for the Catholic dogma concerning the divinity of Christ, so that it had to be affirmed from recent men, they strive in vain to prepare ill-will against us from the silence of those most ancient times. But if some existed in those first centuries, but those who had immediately preceded were deliberately set before them, they ought no more to accuse us if in appealing to the more recent we followed their examples… Thus also the Council of Chalcedon enrolls as authorities men scarcely a whole century before itself, and one even very near, that is, Cyril of Alexandria, who had died six years before.” Then he confirms the same thing by the authority of other Councils and Fathers. Certainly, since the Church cannot at any time fail in faith, if consensus is proved for one time, even a more recent one, concerning some dogma, that dogma is solidly established. Hence Bossuet rightly (Defense of Tradition and of the Holy Fathers, book 8, chapter 1), among the principles which he establishes from St. Augustine, places this in fourth place: “Fourth and last principle: the unanimous sentiment of the present Church suffices in order not to doubt concerning the ancient Church.”
360. The fourth part is proved. I. From what has been said it is sufficiently established that if a few Fathers truly report the faith of the whole Church, the consensus of the Fathers is rightly inferred. Hence rather this must be demonstrated: that there can exist, and do exist, those circumstances from which it ought rightly to be judged that those few report the faith of the Church. But this certainly happens. 1) If in some controversy of faith against a rising heresy, some distinguished one of the Fathers, as a leader, leads the battle line, and in the sight of the whole Church vindicates some head of doctrine as pertaining to the faith, with no one protesting, indeed sometimes with all applauding. Such, for example, was the condition in which St. Athanasius, St. Hilary, St. Augustine, and St. Basil fought for the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity; Cyril of Alexandria, Sophronius, and St. Leo the Great for the mystery of the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ; St. Augustine, St. Prosper, and St. Fulgentius for the divine grace of Christ (compare On Grace, n. 41 ff.). 2) If Fathers, even fewer in number, but whose authority in the Church has always been great, confidently teach something as pertaining to the faith, or testify that it is held by common faith, and do this publicly, so that their doctrine or testimony could easily have become known, and yet no one in the Church ever protested, those Fathers are rightly judged to report the common faith of the Church. 3) If certain writings indeed proceeded from one Father, but were approved by others as orthodox, or even were adopted as their own, from the opinion of that Father the consensus of the others is rightly inferred. Of this sort are, for example, several letters of St. Basil, St. Augustine, and St. Leo the Great; the book On the Holy Spirit written by St. Basil; the work of St. Proclus On Faith to the Armenians; the book of St. Fulgentius On the Incarnation and Grace to Peter the Deacon, etc. A fortiori this holds if the writing has been approved or received as a rule of faith in some Council, as the letter of St. Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius (letter 4), and to John of Antioch (letter 34), etc.
361. II. The same thing can be confirmed by authority and usage. St. Cyril of Alexandria (letter 1 to the monks) affirms concerning St. Athanasius: “Certainly this man is suitable and especially worthy, to whom one may safely attach faith, as one who would have brought forward nothing alien from the divine letters. For in what way would that illustrious and celebrated Father, who in that sacred and great Synod of Nicaea was held in such great admiration by all, wander from the path of truth?” St. Augustine more than once disputes against Julian while relying upon the authority of St. Gregory Nazianzen alone; and (book 1, n. 16) says: “He is so great a person that neither would he say this except from the Christian faith most known to all, nor would they [the bishops of his region and age] hold him so clear and venerable unless they knew that these things said by him were from the rule of most well-known truth.” And the same Holy Doctor, to prove that St. John Chrysostom thinks with the others in the dogma concerning original sin, says (ibid., n. 22): “Far be it that you [John] should think otherwise and stand forth so preeminent in her [the Church].” St. Leo (to Julian, letter 117, otherwise 88, chapter 3): “If [rebellious ignorance] thinks that our doctrine must be doubted, let it at least not reject the writings of Athanasius, Theophilus, and Cyril, priests of Alexandria of blessed memory; with whom the form of our faith so agrees that whoever professes himself to consent to them disagrees with us in nothing.” Compare also Scholarius in the oration before the Fathers of Florence (in Hardouin, tome 9, page 448), and Bessarion in the dogmatic oration (chapter 7, in Hardouin, same place, page 356).