FATHERS
FATHERS
are sufficient, " so that we consider not to be Catholic
at all whatever shall appear to be contrary to the de-
cisions we have cited". Thus the decisions of the
Apostolic See are put on a very different level from the
views of St. Augustine, just as that saint always drew
a sharp distinction between the resolutions of African
councils or the extracts from the Fathers, on the one
hand, and the decrees of Popes Innocent and Zosimus
on the other.
Three years later a famous document on tradi- tion and its use emanated from the Lerinese school, the "Commonitorium" of St. Vincent. He whole- heartedly accepted tlie letter of Pope Celestine, and he quoted it as an authoritative and irresistible witness to his own doctrine that where quod ubique, or universi- tas, is uncertain, we must turn to quod semper, or an- tiquitas. Nothing could be more to his purpose than the pope's: " Desinat inces.sere novitas vetustatem". The cecumenical Council of Ephesus had been held in the same year that Celestine wrote. Its Acts were be- fore St. Vincent, and it is clear that he looked upon both pope and council as decisive authorities. It was necessary to establish this, before turning to his famous canon, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ah omnibus — otherwise universitas, anliquilas, con- sensio. It was not a new criterion, else it would have committed suicide by its very expression. But never had the doctrine been so admirably phrased, so limp- idly explained, so adequately exemplified. Even the law of the evolution of dogma is defined by Vincent in language which can hardly be surpassed for exactness and vigour. St. Vincent's triple test is wholly mis- understood if it is taken to be the ordinary rule of faith. Like all Catholics he took the ordinary rule to be the living magisterium of the Church, antl he as- sumes that the formal decision in cases of doubt lies with the Apostolic See, or with a general council. But cases of doubt arise when no such decision is forth- coming. Then it is that the three tests are to be ap- plied, not simultaneously, but, if necessary, in succes- sion.
When an error is found in one corner of the Church, then the first test, universitas, quod ubique, is an unan- swerable refutation, nor is there any need to examine further (iii, 7, 8). But if an error attacks the whole Church, then antiquitas, quod semper is to be appealed to, that is, a consensus existing before the novelty arose. Still, in the previous period one or two teach- ers, even men of great fame, may have erred. Then we betake ourselves to quod ah omnihus, consensio, to the many against the few (if possible to a general council; if not, to an examination of writings). Those few are a trial of faith " ut tentet vos Dominus Deus vester" (Deut., xiii, 1 sqq.). So TertuUian was a magna tentaiio; so was Origen — indeed the greatest temptation of all. We must know that whenever what is new or unheard before is introduced by one man beyond or against all the saints, it pertains not to re- ligion but to temptation (xx, 49). Who are the "Saints" to whom we appeal? The reply is a defini- tion of "Fathers of the Church" given with all St. Vincent's inimitable accuracy: "Inter se majorem consulat interrogetque sententias, eorum dumlaxat qui, diversis licet temporibus et locis, in unius tamen ec- clesiw Calholicce com.munione et fide permanentes, magis- tri probahiles exstiterunt; et quicquid non unus aut duo tantum, sed omnes pariter uno eodemque con- sensu aperte, frequenter, perseveranter tenuisse, scripsisse, docuisse cognoverit, id sibi quoque intelli- gat absque ulla dubitatione credendum" (iii, 8). "This unambiguous sentence defines for us what is the right way of appealing to the Fathers, and the itali- cized words perfectly explain what is a "Father": "Those alone who, though in diverse times and places, yet persevering in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, have been approved teachers."
The same result is obtained by modern theologians,
in their definitions; e. g. Fessler thus defines what
constitutes a "Father": (1) orthodo.x doctrine and
learning; (2) holiness of life; (3) (at the present
day) a certain antiquity. The criteria by which we
judge whether a writer is a "Father" or not are: (1)
citation by a general council, or (2) in public Acts of
popes addressed to the Church or concerning Faith;
(.3) encomium in the Roman Martyrology as " sancti-
tate et doctrina insignis"; (4) public reading in
Churches in early centuries; (5) citation, with praise,
as an authority as to the Faith by one of the more
celebrated Fathers. Early authors, though belonging
to the Church, who fail to reach this standard are
simply ecclesiastical writers ("Patrologia", ed. Jung-
mann, ch. i, §11). On the other hand, where the
appeal is not to the authority of the writer, but his
testimony is merely required to the belief of his time,
one writer is as good as another, and if a Father is
cited for this purpose, it is not as a Father that he is
cited, but merely as a witness to facts well known to
him. For the history of dogma, therefore, the works of
ecclesiastical WTiters who are not only not approved,
but even heretical, are often just as valuable as those
of the Fathers. On the other hand, the witness of
one Father is occasionally of great weight for doctrine
when taken singly, if he is teaching a subject on which
he is recognized by the Church as an especial author-
ity, e. g., St. Athanasius on the Divinity of the Son, St.
Augustine on the Holy Trinity, etc. There are a few
cases in which a general council has given approba-
tion to the work of a Father, the most important being
the two letters of St. Cyril of Alexandria which were
read at the Council of Ephesus. But " the authority
of single Fathers considered in itself", says Franzelin
(De Traditione, thesis xv), "is not infallible or per-
emptory; though piety and sound reason agree that
the theological opinions of such individuals should
not be treated lightly, and should not without
great caution be interpreted in a sen.se which clashes
with the common doctrine of other Fathers." The
reason is plain enough; they were holy men, who are
not to be presumed to have intended to swerve from
the doctrine of the Church, and their doubtful utter-
ances are therefore to be taken in the best sense of
which they are capable. If they cannot be explained
in an orthodox sense, we have to admit that not the
greatest is immune from ignorance or accidental error
or obscurity. But on the use of the Fathers in theolo-
gical questions, the article Tradition and the ordinary
dogmatic treatises on that subject must be consulted,
as it is proper here only to deal with the historical
development of their use. The subject was never
treated as a part of dogmatic theology until the rise
of what is now commonly called " Theologia funda-
mentalis", in the sixteenth century, the founders of
which are Melchior Canus and Bellarmino. The for-
mer has a discussion of the use of the Fathers in
deciding questions of faith (De locis theologicis, vii).
The Protestant Reformers attacked the authority of
the Fathers. The most famous of these opponents is
Dalla-us (Jean Daill(5, 1594-1670, "TraitC- de I'emploi
des saints Peres", 1632; in Latin "De usu Patrum",
1656). But their obj ections are long since forgotten.
Having traced the development of the use of the Fathers up to the period of its frequent employment, and of its formal statement by St. Vincent of L^rins, it will be well to give a glance at the continuation of the practice. We saw that, in 434, it was possible for St. Vincent (in a book which has been most unreason- ably taken to be a mere polemic against St. Augustine — a notion which is amply refuted by the use made in it of St. Celestine's letter) to define the meaning and method of patristic appeals. From that time onward they are very common. In the Council of Ephesus, 431, as St. Vincent points out, St. Cyril presented a series of quotations from the Fathers, rdy ayiuiTiruv koJ
