What is so hard to understand about the consensus of the magisterium? Cherry picking fathers isn’t going to address the main point.
There were over 400 bishops, and you’re quoting the one who happens to support what you believe.
I'm having trouble with a couple of things:
First, I have trouble with the glorification of the concepts of "majority rule" and "stare decisis" via replacing their names with the single term "Magisterium".
Second, I have trouble with claims that someone is "cherry picking" the Church Fathers. Since we do not accord any of them with the power of infallibility or with impeccability, it should be obvious that the Church Fathers may have been wrong about some things, and all of them were certainly wrong about something at some point in their writings. Who gets to decide which quotes "count" and which constitute "cherry picking"? Why is the Catholic practice of selective citation, arranged neatly so as to support the claim that "to read the Church Fathers is to become Catholic" or however the line goes. not a prime example of cherry picking"? What objective, external standard can be appealed to, to verify when a Church Father is "orthodox" and when he is "heretical"?
You don't have to tell me the answer, because I think we can all guess it by now: "The Magisterium", or to use a better word, "by majority vote".
If they're being led by the same Holy Spirit, then how can they have any differences of interpretation?
At least that's the reasoning when non-Catholics are not in total, lockstep agreement on EVERYTHING.
Oh, but when it's the magisterium, well, then, consensus is good enough, even though the fact that there's disagreement (according to Catholic standards applied to others) it's *proof* that the people are not being led by the Holy Spirit.
It's that old double standard thing. Rules for thee but not for me.
Hypocrisy abounds.