The unanimous consent of the fathers

One of the stock objections which Catholic apologists like to use against sola Scriptura is to try to generate a dilemma: How can sola Scriptura be true unless we can use Scripture alone to identify Scripture?

Here’s a recent example:

“Because the list of canonical books is itself not found in scripture—as one can find the Ten Commandments or the names of Christ’s Apostles—any such list, whether Protestant or Catholic, would be an item of extra-biblical knowledge…The belief that the Bible consists only of 66 books is not a claim of scripture—since one cannot find the list in it—but a claim about scripture as a whole…If the 66 books are the supreme authority on matters of belief, and the number of books is a belief, and one cannot find that belief in any of the books, then the belief that scripture consists of 66 particular books is an extra-biblical belief,” F. Beckwith, Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic (Brazos 2009).123-124.

“Because there can be no scriptural test for canonicity unless one first knows what constitutes scripture, one must rely on extra-scriptural tests in order to know the scriptura to which sola scriptura refers. But then one is not actually relying on ‘scripture alone’ to determine the most fundamental standard for the Christian, the Bible,” ibid. 135n10.

Now, I’ve responded to this sort of objection on multiple occasions (including my review of Beckwith), so I won’t repeat myself here. Instead, I’m going to approach this issue from a different angle.

Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that this poses a genuine dilemma for the Protestant rule of faith. If so, then it’s easy to construct a parallel dilemma for the Catholic rule of faith.

Take the unanimous consent of the Fathers. Both Trent and Vatican one invoke the unanimous consent of the Fathers as a criterion for the true meaning of Scripture.

Suppose we substitute the unanimous consent of the Fathers for the Scriptural synonyms which Beckwith uses in his argument. What’s the effect if we plug the unanimous consent of the Father’s into his argument?

Because the list of consensual patristic interpretations is itself not found in the church fathers—as one can find the Ten Commandments or the names of Christ’s Apostles—any such list, whether Protestant or Catholic, would be an item of extra-patristic knowledge. Appeal to the unanimem consensum Patrum is not a claim of the church fathers—since one cannot find the church fathers unanimously listing their consensual interpretations—but a claim about the church fathers as a whole. If the church fathers are a final authority on matters of interpretive belief, and patristic consensus is a belief, and one cannot find where their consensual beliefs are listed by them, then the belief that the unanimem consensum Patrum is a criterion of true interpretation is an extra-patristic belief.

Because there can be no patristic test for unanimous patristic consent unless one first knows what constitutes the unanimem consensum Patrum, one must rely on extra-patristic tests in order to know the unanimem consensum Patrum to which the unanimem consensum Patrum refers. But then one is not actually relying on “unanimous consent of the Fathers” to determine the true meaning of Scripture.

In sum, where do the church fathers unanimously consent to where the church fathers unanimously consent? If we have to go outside the church fathers to identify their consensual core, then we aren’t really relying on the unanimem consensum Patrum.

If the unanimem consensum Patrum is a claim about the whole—a claim concerning all the church fathers—yet the church fathers as a whole don’t identify the unanimem consensum Patrum, then we can’t identify the parts from the whole, or the whole from the parts. We can’t identify the consensual core from within the consensual core, but only from without—by appealing to some extra-patristic consensus concerning the patristic consensus. So the patristic criterion ceases to be a self-contained criterion.

How would a Catholic squeeze out of this conundrum? Would he fall back on the authority of the church? But that only pushes the dilemma back a step.

How do we know that the church whose authority he invokes is the true church to which Scripture or the church fathers refer? And how does he know what the Bible or the church fathers truly refer to apart from the unanimem consensum Patrum?

If, ex hypothesi, sola scriptura is self-contradictory, then the unanimem consensum Patrum is equally self-contradictory. If sola scriptura can’t be self-referential, then the unanimem consensum Patrum can’t be self-referential either. But what does a consensus amount to unless the consenting parties consent to their own, mutual consent?