The Fathers are not Holy Tradition. They are not infallible. The Scriptures, the Ecumenical Councils and the Liturgical life of the Church express one and the same infallible truth, are inseparable from each other and represent three expressions of the faith once delivered and believed from the beginning.
The Fathers play a role only in their consensus, not individually. That to which the Father consented is what the Church considers the correct doctrine. Naturally, it is consistent with the Holy Tradition which is: the Bible, the Ecumenical Councils and the Liturgical life of the Church.
By referring to the Fathers, we know how the early Church treated issues that we deal with, how the early Church responded to heresies, how the early Church understood the Holy trinity and Christology, as well as how it understood the Scripture (based on commentaries of the Fathers).
Through Fathers we also learn of some of their own theologoumenna (hypotheses) which did not necessarily become doctrine because there was no consensus on them. The Fathers are our eyes and ears and mindset of the earliest Church, and also a measuring stick as to whether we profess the same faith they did. That is our only assurance that the Church has not changed, or re-invented itself.
Meant to include you on the ping list 11,326. Sorry.
Regards
The Fathers play a role only in their consensus, not individually. That to which the Father consented is what the Church considers the correct doctrine.
This was my understanding, and when you all quote the Fathers to me in support of a point I have been assuming that the quote is in agreement with an approved position of the Church. Should I not do that? :)