The following comes from Robert A. Sungenis, who has written
a lot in favor of Catholic theology (e.g., Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical
and Historical Evidence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice) and against
Protestantism (e.g., Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the
Catholic Doctrine of Justification). What stood out is how Sungenis
downplays the significance of the patristics and their witness (at least in
comparison to many pop-level Catholic apologists who often [falsely] appeal to
the unanimous consent of the fathers for various doctrines):
Often we are tempted to think
that support for a doctrinal truth can be garnered simply by finding a
representative sample of Fathers of the early Church who held the same opinion.
Often the Catholic interpreter will quote one, two, or perhaps even a dozen
Fathers on a matter of doctrine and consider the case closed. Unfortunately, it
is simply not that easy. Unless the Fathers had a consensus wherein all of them
agreed on a certain matter of Christian doctrine, the doctrine is neither
established nor required for belief. The Catholic should consider the testimony
of the Fathers influential and valuable, but certainly not final. The reason is
that the Catholic Church does not regard the Fathers as possessing an inspired
gift for deciding matters of doctrine, nor does the Church regard the Fathers
as superior interpreters of Scripture compared to exegetes of a later time.
Truth be told, some of the Fathers were poor at exegeting Scripture. Some of
them did not even know the languages of the Bible, Greek and Hebrew. At other
times the Fathers not only contradicted one another, but a Father would
sometimes contradict himself, or give two or more opinions on a certain passage
of Scripture. In fact, some of the Fathers held beliefs that were later
regarded as dubious or even heretical by the Church. (Robert A. Sungenis,
“Should We Expect a Mass Conversion of Jews Just Before the Return of Christ?,”
in Catholic/Jewish Dialogue: Controversies & Corrections [State
Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2010], 634)
The main reason the Church
invests the Fathers with a certain degree of influence or authority regarding
Catholic doctrine is that their consensus on a certain belief is a strong sign
that the doctrine originates from Christ and the Apostles. [272] If their
teaching is unanimous, such that they all interpret a text of the Bible
precisely the same, then it can be assumed, barring some intervention by the
magisterium, that the teaching was inspired by the Holy Spirit, either by
written revelation (2Tm 3:16) or oral revelation (1Th 2:13), which were both
commanded to be preserved in Tradition (2Th 2:15). It is the divine origin of a
particular doctrine that makes the doctrine a requirement of belief for
salvation, not the majority or common opinion of the Fathers, the medieval or
theologians and prelates of today. (Robert A. Sungenis, “Should We Expect a
Mass Conversion of Jews Just Before the Return of Christ?,” in Catholic/Jewish
Dialogue: Controversies & Corrections [State Line, Pa.: Catholic
Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2010], 634-35)
[272] “We say [the Fathers] are
of supreme authority whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any
text of the Bible as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their
unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down form the
Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith” (Encyclical, Providentissimus Deus, II,
1893).
There are instances in which the
Fathers held to a consensus on various points of doctrine, but the Church, who
is the final authority, has not chosen to dogmatize the consensus into a
requirement for personal belief and salvation (e.g., geocentrism, the sons of
God in Gn 6:1-2 were fallen angels, etc). There are other instances in which
there exists very little testimony from the Fathers on a given doctrine, yet
the Church has chosen to dogmatize the doctrine and make it a requirement for
salvation (e.g., the Assumption of Mary). Sometimes there is a germ of doctrine
in the Fathers which is enhanced by the medieval theologians, but which the
Church eventually rejects (e.g., limbo). [273] Additionally, there are cases in
which an absolute consensus exists very early among the Fathers on a given
doctrine and which the Church dogmatizes early in her history (e.g., baptismal
regeneration), yet other times there is a developing consensus which the Church
dogmatizes rather later in her history (e.g., transubstantiation,
justification, canon of Scripture). Hence, when we enter into a study of the
patristics, we must tread lightly. As reliable as they often were, the Fathers
were fallible men just like theologians of today. In fact, the tools of
biblical exegesis we have today, as well as the exegetical knowledge and easy
access of Greek and Hebrew not available to some Fathers, contemporary exegetes
of Scripture have a distinct advantage in discovering the truths of Holy Writ
that there not always available to the Fathers. What the Fathers had to their
distinct advantage is their close proximity to the Apostles, and thus we would
expect that, if and when there was a bridge from the Apostles to the Fathers on
a certain point of doctrine, the Fathers would most likely provide us with
consensus testimony to that divine source, yet even then, they may not do so in
very case. (Robert A. Sungenis, “Should We Expect a Mass Conversion of Jews
Just Before the Return of Christ?,” in Catholic/Jewish Dialogue:
Controversies & Corrections [State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics
International Publishing, Inc., 2010], 635)
The case of Limbo is especially
significant since Pope Benedict XVI recently approved a papal commission
document that essentially removed Limbo from the teaching of the Church. This
shows that even cherished theological ideas from tradition, if not officially
accepted and dogmatized by the Church, can be eliminated by a future pope or
council. (Ibid., 635 n. 275)
