In this work, Fr. Ripperger addresses questions in regard to the theological tradition on the consensus of the Fathers and the Theologians. With careful theological precision, he demonstrates who is to be considered a Father of the Church, as well as who is to be considered a Theologian, and what demonstrates a true consensus of their thought throughout the ages. In our modern age where everything seems to be up in the air and drawn into controversy, Fr. Ripperger gives a rare window into the clarity of the theological tradition on this subject in refutation of certain authors. Not the mere obiter dicta of this or that Father or Theologian, but a true consensus of all of the them is infallible, properly understood by the Magisterium.

A study of the object and nature of Sacred Tradition and the moral requirement of Catholics to accept the Sacred tradition.

The 1960 publication of We Hold These Truths marked a significant event in the history of modern American thought. Since that time, Sheed & Ward has kept the book in print and has published several studies of John Courtney Murray's life and work. We are proud to present a new edition of this classic text, which features a comprehensive introduction by Peter Lawler that places Murray in the context of Catholic and American history and thought while revealing his relevance today. From the new Introduction by Peter Lawler: The Jesuit John Courtney Murray (1904-67) was, in his time, probably the best known and most widely respected American Catholic writer on the relationship between Catholic philosophy and theology and his country's political life. The highpoint of his influence was the publication of We Hold These Truths in the same year as an election of our country's first Catholic president. Those two events were celebrated by a Time cover story (December 12, 1960) on Murray's work and influence. The story's author, Protestant Douglas Auchincloss, reported that it was "The most relentlessly intellectual cover story I've done." His amazingly wide ranging and dense-if not altogether accurate-account of Murray's thought was crowned with a smart and pointed conclusion: "If anyone can help U.S. Catholics and their non-Catholic countrymen toward the disagreement that precedes understanding-John Courtney Murray can." . . . Murray's work, of course, is treated with great respect and has had considerable influence, but now it's time to begin to think of him as one of America's very few genuine political philosophers. His disarmingly lucid and accessible prose has caused his book to be widely cited and celebrated, but it still is not well understood. It is both praised and blamed for reconciling Catholic faith with the fundamental premises of American political life. It is praised by liberals for paving the way for Vatican II's embrace of the American idea of religious liberty, and it is

A reprint of three articles from Christian Order addressing the nature and limits of Magisterial Authority. The Book also contains principles in relation to judging contradictory magisterial statements as well as how one should approach an erring magisterial member.

The author of this book challenges the contemporary view of God and suffering. Calling upon scripture, and the philosophical and theological tradition of the Fathers and Aquinas, he advocates the incarnational truth that the Son of God actually does experience human living, including suffering.

In this volume, Jason Radcliff examines T. F. Torrance's reading of the church fathers. Radcliff explores how Torrance reconstructs the patristic tradition, producing a Reformed, evangelical, and ecumenical version of the Consensus Patrum ("Consensus of the Fathers"). This book investigates how Torrance uniquely understands the Fathers and the Reformers to be mutually informing and how, as such, his approach involves significant changes to both standard readings of the Fathers and Torrance's own Reformed evangelical tradition. Torrance's approach is distinctive in its Christocentric rootedness in the primary theme of the Nicene homoousion ("of one essence [with the Father]") and its champion Athanasius of Alexandria. The book explores Torrance's inherently broad ecclesiology and constructive achievements, both of which contribute to his ongoing ecumenical relevance.

Basil of Caesarea is considered one of the architects of the Pro-Nicene Trinitarian doctrine adopted at the Council of Constantinople in 381, which eastern and western Christians to this day profess as ""orthodox."" Nowhere is his Trinitarian theology more clearly expressed than in his first major doctrinal work, Against Eunomius, finished in 364 or 365 CE. Responding to Eunomius, whose Apology gave renewed impetus to a tradition of starkly subordinationist Trinitarian theology that would survive for decades, Basil's Against Eunomius reflects the intense controversy raging at that time among Christians across the Mediterranean world over who God is. In this treatise, Basil attempts to articulate a theology both of God's unitary essence and of the distinctive features that characterize the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--a distinction that some hail as the cornerstone of ""Cappadocian"" theology. In Against Eunomius, we see the clash not simply of two dogmatic positions on the doctrine of the Trinity, but of two fundamentally opposed theological methods. Basil's treatise is as much about how theology ought to be done and what human beings can and cannot know about God as it is about the exposition of Trinitarian doctrine. Thus Against Eunomius marks a turning point in the Trinitarian debates of the fourth century, for the first time addressing the methodological and epistemological differences that gave rise to theological differences. Amidst the polemical vitriol of Against Eunomius is a call to epistemological humility on the part of the theologian, a call to recognize the limitations of even the best theology. While Basil refined his theology through the course of his career, Against Eunomius remains a testament to his early theological development and a privileged window into the Trinitarian controversies of the mid-fourth century.