St. Vincent of Lérins and the Necessity of Tradition
Aurelio Porfiri
I am fairly sure that many, outside of theological circles, are not familiar with the name of Vincent, a priest and monk of the monastery of Lérins who lived in the 5th century and whom the Church commemorates on May 24. This is truly unfortunate, because the influence he had on Christian thought has not faded. Vincent was the author of the Commonitorium (written in 434), a kind of manual of orthodox Christian teachings. One scholar describes the importance of this book as follows:
“The two main ideas that have chiefly attracted attention throughout the book are those concerning fidelity to Tradition (iii and xxix) and the development of Catholic doctrine (xxiii). The principle, called very often the canon of St. Vincent of Lérins, which Newman thought more fitted to determine what is not than what is Catholic doctrine, has often been involved in controversies: according to its author, this principle should decide the value of a new point of doctrine before the judgment of the Church; Vincent proposes it as a means of testing a novelty that arises at some point in doctrine. This canon has been variously interpreted, some writers thinking that its real meaning is not that which fulfilled Vincent's purpose, when we use it against Augustine's ideas. It is difficult to deny that, despite the clearness of its formula, the explanation of the principle and its application to historical facts has not always been easy; even theologians like de San and Franzelin, who generally agree in their opinions, are here at variance. Vincent shows clearly that his principle is to be understood in a relative and disjunctive sense, and not absolutely, uniting the three criteria in one: ubique, semper, ab omnibus; antiquity is not to be understood in an absolute, but in a relative sense, as the consensus of antiquity. When he speaks of beliefs generally admitted, it is more difficult to determine whether he means explicitly or implicitly admitted beliefs; in the latter case the canon is true and applicable in both senses, affirmative (what is Catholic) and negative or exclusive (what is not Catholic); in the former, the canon is true and applicable in its affirmation; but can it be said to be so in its negative or exclusive sense, without putting Vincent entirely at variance with all he says about the development of revealed doctrine?”
(Ghellinck, J. (1912). St. Vincent of Lérins. Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved May 19, 2019, from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15439b.htm)
Despite some of the scholar’s doubts, there is no question that the criteria set forth by Vincent form an important bulwark against drifting into heresy.
The canon in question is the following:
"In the Catholic Church itself, we must take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. This is truly and properly 'catholic,' as indicated by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all, the priests and doctors alike."
This is a classic statement of theology. This idea of "universality", which is deeply Catholic, does not mean, of course, the support of ideas that happen to please everyone, but rather the adherence to what is so evident that all believe it as a truth of faith, as self-demonstrating. This same idea also inspired the Motu Proprio on sacred music by St. Pius X in 1903; "universality" was one of the three essential qualities required for sacred music worthy of the name.
In another canon of St. Vincent, we read:
"What then shall a Catholic Christian do, if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to a pestilent and corrupt member? But what if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty. But what if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what if some error should spring up on which no such decision is found to have been delivered? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities; and whatever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, and taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently — that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation."
This passage is very important in light of the grave difficulties we are experiencing in the Church: what if a contagion were to infect the whole Church and not just a small part of it? Then, we must hold fast to tradition.
The lesson of St. Vincent should never be forgotten, especially when we are given to live, as the Chinese say, in interesting times.