The Consensus of the Fathers and Scripture

Scheeben on Trent and Vatican I

In the modern era, one of the most neglected teachings of the Church is the teaching on the authority of the Church, Fathers, and Theologians on the interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

The first explicit mention of this is in the Council of Trent, where the Council Fathers state

Furthermore, to restrain irresponsible minds, it decrees that no one, relying on his own prudence, may twist Holy Scripture in matters of faith and practice that pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, according to his own mind, contrary to the meaning that Holy Mother the Church has held and holds—since it belongs to her to judge the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture—and that no one may dare to interpret the Scripture in a way contrary to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers, even if such interpretations are not intended for publication. Let those who act against this ruling be denounced by their ordinaries and let them be punished with the penalties established by law.

Further, the Tridentine Profession of Faith states

I also accept Sacred Scripture according to the meaning that has been and is held by Holy Mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, nor will I ever take and interpret it in any way but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

Yet, due to common misunderstanding of the Tridentine documents, the First Vatican Council clarified the teaching, writing

Since, however, what the holy Council of Trent has laid down concerning the interpretation of the divine Scripture for the good purpose of restraining undisciplined minds has been explained by certain men in a distorted manner, We renew the same decree and declare this to be its sense: In matters of faith and morals, affecting the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which Holy Mother the Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of Holy Scriptures. Therefore no one is allowed to interpret the same Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense or contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

The same idea was presented by the Popes after the Council. Leo XIII wrote

Wherefore the first and dearest object of the Catholic commentator should be to interpret those passages which have received an authentic interpretation either from the sacred writers themselves, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost (as in many places of the New Testament), or from the Church, under the assistance of the same Holy Spirit, whether by her solemn judgment or her ordinary and universal magisterium - to interpret these passages in that identical sense, and to prove, by all the resources of science, that sound hermeneutical laws admit of no other interpretation. In the other passages, the analogy of faith should be followed, and Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church....the Holy Fathers, We say, 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 from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith.

Yet, there are also important notes given by both Leo XIII and Ven. Pius XII. Leo XIII reminds us that such authority does not enter into the interpretation of purely secular matters.

The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in.

Ven. Pius XII, while retaining the traditional doctrine, reminded us that such passages are rare to come by and should be limited to evident cases.

Let them bear in mind above all that in the rules and laws promulgated by the Church there is question of doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that in the immense matter contained in the Sacred Books - legislative, historical, sapiential and prophetical - there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church.

This was reemphasized by the ITC in its document Theology Today: Perspectives, Principles, and Criteria.

The councils of Chalcedon and Trent began their solemn declarations with the formula: ‘Following the Holy Fathers…’, and the council of Trent and the First Vatican Council clearly indicated that the ‘unanimous consensus’ of the Fathers was a sure guide for the interpretation of Scripture.

With the general doctrine of the Church out of the way, what are the proper distinctions and synthesis that ought to be present in this matter as to go between either an over-exaggeration of the authority of the Fathers in such a matter, or, in an even more insidious manner, an under-exaggeration of the teachings of the Fathers. Scheeben provides us with a welcome synthesis. Along with him, I will provide the solutions of other authors.