The phrase "unanimous consent of the Fathers" had a specific application as used at the Council of Trent (Fourth Session), and reiterated at the First Vatican Council (Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, chap. 2). The Council Fathers specifically applied the phrase to the interpretation of Scripture. Biblical and theological confusion was rampant in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther stated, "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."The Council Fathers at Trent (1554-63) affirmed the ancient custom that the proper understanding of Scripture was that which was held by the Fathers of the Church. In this way, they hoped to bring order out of the rising chaos. Opposition to the Church's teaching is exemplified by William Webster (The Church of Rome at the Bar of History [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995]), who misrepresents the Council Fathers by redefining and misapplying "unanimous consent." First in redefining, he implies that unanimous consent means 100% affirmation by each Father. This is a false understanding of the phrase and even in American law, unanimous consent "does not always mean that every one present voted for the proposition, but it may, and generally does, mean, when a [verbal] vote is taken, that no one voted in the negative" (Black's Law Dictionary).
Second, Webster misapplies the term, not to the interpretation of Scripture, as the Council Fathers intended, but to tradition. His assertions are patently untrue, but using a skewed definition and application of "unanimous consent," he uses selective patristic passages as proof-texts for his analysis of the Fathers.
As an example, individual Fathers may explain the "Rock" in Matthew 16 as Jesus, Peter, Peter's confession or Peter's faith. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to the "Rock" of Matthew 16 as Peter in one place (CCC 552) and his faith in another (CCC 424). Matthew 16 can be applied in many ways to refute false teachings and to instruct the faithful without emphasizing the literal, historical interpretation of Peter as the Rock upon which the Church has been built. Webster and others emphasize various patristic applications as "proof" of non-unanimous consent.
Of that I have no doubt, Madrid is a post Vatican II Modernist who subscribes to the new, novel redefinition of "Viva Voce". He is free to disagree. I would not expect otherwise.
I think he's probably a more cogent authority on Catholic doctrine than you are.
That could be true, or it could not be.
Here is exactly what Trent says in the 4th session.
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, —wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,—whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.
Yet Rome itself interprets Matthew 16:18 in violation of it's own stated principle. As is already noted, two early church fathers, of whom they belong to the overwhelming majority in their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 disagree with Rome's later interpretation, and contradict Rome with an overwhelming majority voice.