Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

On the true sense of the Vincentian canon.

« The canon of St Vincent of Lérins (Commonit. n. 3. 4. 38. 41.), by which the characters of Catholic doctrine are assigned as universality, antiquity, and consensus of faith, if 1°. considered in itself, is most true in the affirming sense, that doctrine distinguished by these characters is certainly a dogma of the Catholic faith; yet it is not true in the excluding sense, as though nothing could pertain to the deposit of faith which was not everywhere and by all always explicitly believed. But if 2°. the sense of the rule be sought in the context of the Commonitorium itself, nothing else is exhibited than a twofold note, either of which suffices for discerning the absolute antiquity or apostolicity of doctrine, namely the present consensus of the Church and the consensus of relative antiquity existing before the controversy arose. »

I. The canon of which we treat Lirinensis enunciates in these words. « In the Catholic Church herself too great care must be taken that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, which always, which by all. For this is truly and properly Catholic... But this will so be done only if we follow universality, antiquity, consensus » n. 3. It is a question therefore of heads which are not held and observed in the Church in any way whatever, but which are believed by faith ¹. But a thing can have been believed in two ways, explicitly namely or only implicitly (cf. th. XXIII. n. I.). Whatever is contained in the deposit of objective revelation has without doubt been believed everywhere, always, by all Catholics at least implicitly, nor can anything be contained in the deposit without being so believed; for he would already cease to be Catholic who did not bear a ready mind to believe all things which shall have been sufficiently proposed to him as divinely revealed, or whose habit of faith did not extend to rendering assent to all things comprehended in revelation. But in this sense to have been believed always and everywhere cannot be given as a theological criterion and rule for discerning those things which are contained in revelation; for the objects of faith believed only implicitly are not known in themselves as revealed. But indeed to inquire whether something has been believed everywhere, always, by all at least implicitly is the same as to inquire whether something is contained in objective revelation and Tradition, which is a thing to be inquired into through something else, not a note for finding something else. Although therefore it be true both in the affirming and in the excluding sense that all that pertains to the deposit of faith which has been believed everywhere, always and by all at least implicitly, and that nothing pertains to the deposit which has not been so believed; yet this cannot be the signification of the Vincentian rule.

The proposed criterion therefore cannot be understood except of explicit faith. Now it is established from the foregoing theses that universal consensus in some dogma as a doctrine of faith, at whatever time it exists, is a certain criterion of divinely handed-down doctrine (th. V. n. III; th. VIII. n. I. II; Coroll. I. to th. IX; th. XI. n. II.). Therefore without doubt such a consensus of antiquity, and most splendidly the universal consensus of all ages, demonstrates divine Tradition (th. XIV. XV.). What therefore has been believed everywhere, always, by all cannot but be revealed and divinely handed down.

But from the foregoing it is likewise established that certain heads of doctrine can be contained in the deposit of objective revelation which were not always in the manifest and explicit ecclesiastical preaching, and which therefore, as long as they were not sufficiently proposed, could within the very bounds of the Church be called into controversy without loss of faith and communion (coroll. 2. to th. IX. and th. XXIII.). Therefore some head of doctrine can be contained in objective revelation, and can also in course of time, sufficient explication and proposition having been made, pertain to the truths to be believed with Catholic faith with necessity, which, though always contained in the deposit of revelation, yet was not always, everywhere, and by all explicitly believed or necessarily to be believed. Although therefore the characters enumerated in the canon, if present, evidently demonstrate that the doctrine to which they belong is a dogma of the Catholic faith; yet if they are absent, it is not by that very fact already established that the doctrine is not contained in the deposit of faith, or that doctrine, by the very fact that at some time for defect of sufficient proposition it was not explicitly to be believed, is at no time to be believed. The canon therefore is true in the affirming sense, yet cannot be admitted in the negating and excluding sense.

II. If the canon be considered in its context and together with the explication by which it is declared by Vincent, its sense appears to be the following. a) Absolute antiquity or the apostolicity of doctrine is not proposed as a note by which something else is inquired into; but it is the very thing which is inquired into. b) As notes by which the apostolicity of doctrine is to be known two properties are proposed: universality, which is the present consensus of the Church, and the consensus of antiquity ², of relative antiquity namely, i.e. the consensus which is demonstrated to have existed before the controversy arose. From either of these two notes absolute antiquity is known and inferred. For when, whether through the solemn judgment of the authentic magisterium (of an ecumenical Council or of the Pontiff) or through the unanimous ecclesiastical preaching, the present consensus of universality is clear and manifest, this alone of itself suffices; but if, controversy having now arisen, this consensus were less perspicuous, or were not acknowledged by the adversaries to be refuted, then, says Vincent, appeal must be made to the consensus of antiquity manifest either by solemn judgments or by the conspiring opinions of the Fathers. Lastly, if in polemical disputation the heretics proceed so far as to venerate neither even that authority of the preceding Fathers, he confesses that nothing else remains common to us and to them as a principle but the authority of Scripture. The truth of this our interpretation shines forth from all the contexts of the Vincentian Commonitorium itself.

1°. He bids us hold that « which has been believed everywhere, always, by all, » discerning nothing whether it was so believed explicitly or implicitly (n. 3.). Then he proposes the notes by which we may arrive at knowledge whether something has been so believed everywhere, always, by all, which notes are universality, antiquity, consensus. « But this (that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all) will so be done, he says, only if we follow universality, antiquity, consensus. » Therefore to have been believed everywhere, always, and by all is the thing to be known through something else, not the note and criterion of knowledge; but the notes are universality, antiquity, consensus.

2°. What Vincent understands by the name of universality he forthwith declares as follows: « but we shall follow universality in this way, if we confess that to be the one true faith which the whole Church throughout the world confesses. » Universality therefore is the consensus of the whole Church, and indeed, inasmuch as it is distinguished from the note of antiquity, the consensus of the Church in this present age in which the question arises. This is manifest from n. 4, where he compares universality as a present consensus, which can be disturbed by some through invented new errors, with antiquity as the consensus of the preceding age, « which now can in no wise be seduced by any fraud of novelty. » Moreover in the same place n. 4. he says that the consensus of universality is to be followed, « lest we be broken off from the integrity of unity into a part of schism, » which he then in n. 5. illustrates by the example of the Catholics in Africa, who « detesting the schism (of Donatus) were associated to all the Churches of the world (consenting, to wit, in the present). »

3°. That by antiquity insofar as it is a note Vincent understands relative antiquity, so that from it absolute antiquity or apostolicity is inferred, is established from his whole manner of disputing. For he always constitutes antiquity in the opinion of preceding Fathers or Councils which had existed before the rise of the heresy to be confuted or of the controversy to be decided. « Likewise in antiquity itself, he says n. 38, to the temerity of one or of very few are first of all to be preferred, if there be any, the general decrees of a universal Council; then next, if that is too little, the consentient opinions of many and great masters » ³ And in n. 39. he wills that to ancient heresies be opposed Councils held already before those heresies arose, or if these too be contemned by those heretics, then at length polemically against them there remain as a common fount the Scriptures.

4°. That either note — whether the consensus of the present universality or the consensus of antiquity — suffices for demonstrating the apostolicity of doctrine, Lirinensis teaches most luminously in all places. « What then shall a Catholic Christian do, he asks n. 4, if some small portion of the Church cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? » « What indeed, he answers, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the pestiferous and corrupted member? » But if concerning the present consensus on account of the perturbations arisen there were doubt, the other remains: « then likewise he shall provide, he says, to cleave to antiquity. »

There can therefore be no doubt that this is the genuine sense of St Vincent which we have enunciated in the thesis. But doctrine to which either note is wanting must be deemed at least not yet sufficiently proposed to Catholic faith; doctrine repugnant to either consensus must be deemed a profane novelty.