Why in the world would you say that? You seem to think the follwing:
There was unanaimous consent of the Fathers on a certain point (or any point)only if there is one place, or text, written by the Fathers themselves,where all the views of the Fathers are drawn up.
"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council of Trent] 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 Scriptures to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs 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."
"never (intended) to be at any time published." Never published. Exists nowhere.
You must rely on what some men tell you. You would be better off not reading the Bible at all. Confine yourself to the writings and words of a bunch of men who will tell you what to think.
It is not possible in any way to prove such a thing as "Unanimous Consent Of The Fathers"..
==============================
Or go to the Catholic answers website and see their pieces that present the unanimous opinions of the Fathers, in excerpt form. Maybe you better not, they were all in unanimous consent on the things the Catholic Church teaches.
Catholic Answers has given too many incorrect answers to be considered a consistently reliable source.
=================================================================================
Just who are these "Fathers" you speak of? Can you list them? Does the list change throughout history?
Reggie, have you asked yourself what the term "such interpretations" refers too? Given its place in the sentence of the decree, the "such interpretations" could refer either to the subject of the immediately prior clause -- the unanimous consent of the Fathers--or it could refer to the subject of the whole decree--the interpretations of the pestulant spirits that are either contrary to the sense of the text accepted by the Church or the sense of the text having unanimous consent of the Fathers. The antecedent of "such interpretations" is the interpretations of pestulant spirits, namely, the interpretations are forbidden EVEN IF NOT YET PUBLISHED. That is the subject matter of the whole decree--the interpretations of the pestulant spirits. Certainly, the decree is not at all forbidding the publication of the writings of the Fathers. After all, Bellarmine, (and de Sales and a million others) were, after Trent, reading published copies of the Fathers and constructing again and again, overwhelming arguments, drawn from the full range of Patristic writings, showing that there was unanimous consent of the Fathers on this or that point. Even if you deny in advance that such arguments are possible, they have already been produced. Read any one of these authors.
You would be better off not reading the Bible at allWhy in the world would you say that? Would it be better off not to read it just because I cannot make it say whatever I personally want, but am to understand it along with the rest of the Church? Are you saying that just because you cannot be a lone ranger, you cannot profit from the text? Unless I interpret the text on my own authority, like you do, it is not worth studying or contemplating at all?
As for the list of Fathers, much of what they wrote is available online at www.newadvent.org Take about fifteen years off, work through that list of texts, then tell me you cannot prove anything. Then learn Latin and Greek, then take another forty years and read the texts that have not been translated. Until then, you are simply stepping way beyond your ability to verify what can and cannot be done.