! 1

ORTHODOX READINGS OF VINCENT OF LRINS !BY DANIEL J. LATTIER !!

The emergence of the category of doctrinal development among 19th century Christians inevitably resulted in a dismissive reaction to what has come to be known as the Canon or Rule of Vincent of Lrins. At stake with doctrinal development is the ever important question of which teachings constitute authentic understandings of Christian revelation, and which constitute unwarranted accretions. Vincents rule of thumb was rather simple: teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum estWe hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all men and women. Those theologians who hold to the idea of doctrinal development, 1aware that not all doctrines were so clearly expressed in the early Church, have often criticized this canon as being simplistic and unhelpful. The increase of doctrinal development in the West, then, has resulted in the decrease of Vincent. !

Modern Orthodox authors, however, have largely rejected the category of doctrinal development for reasons which I will state later in this paper. Yet, interestingly, many of these same authors have also commented upon the Vincentian Canon and similarly deemed it insufficient. In this paper, I will compare the Western reception of this Canon with its reception in the East in order to more fully examine the Orthodox rejection of doctrinal development. !

THE VINCENTIAN CANON !The Canon of Vincent, quoted above, is contained within his Commonitoriuma

short treatise against heresies that have plagued the Christian Church since its inception. The treatise as we have it today is short because the second portion of it has been lost to history. Writing under the pseudonym of Peregrinus, Vincents primary concern was to defend the semi-Pelagians against the attacks of Augustine. Some authors have speculated that it is the defense of semi-Pelagianism, in addition to the critique of Augustine, that resulted in the relatively little attention paid to the Commonitorium during the Middle Ages and Renaissance. !

In the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation, however, the Commonitorium experienced a resurgence of attention. What was almost exclusively focused on in this resurgence was the Vincentian Canon, as both Roman Catholics and Protestants used it to disprove the claims of the other. The threefold test of the Canon, as stated above, was universality, antiquity, and consent. In other words, for a teaching to be considered a true Christian teaching, it must have been taught in all geographical locales of the Church, since apostolic times, and been held by all members of the Church. As one might guess, Protestants typically used the Canon against Roman Catholic teachings on the Papacy and

! 2

the Eucharist, while Roman Catholics used it against the Protestant formula of sola scriptura. !

VINCENT AND DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT !With the advent of historical consciousness on modern men and women, however,

and the emergence of the idea of doctrinal development, the Vincentian Canon was relegated to the role of a sparring partner. John Henry Newman, the standard-bearer for theories of doctrinal development, formulated his theory, in part, as a response to Vincents criteria of orthodoxy. Eight years earlier, in the Via Media, Newman had used Vincents Canon as the proper evidence of the fidelity or apostolicity of a professed tradition. By the time of his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Newman 2no longer thought the Canon to be adequate, as he recognized that many of the teachings later professed in Church councilssuch as the Triune nature of God, or the books included in the New Testamentcould not be found expressed, or agreed upon, in the earliest years of the Church. Newman ultimately concluded that Vincents Canon could only be true if considered in a moral sense, or in the abstract, but that its literal interpretation was not effective of any satisfactory result. 3!

Other theologians who countenanced some idea of doctrinal development came to a similar conclusion about the Vincentian Canon. Thus, Johann Franzelin (1816-1886), a contemporary of Newman, believed that the Canon could be understood affirmatively, but not exclusively. Or, as Aidan Nichols puts it, [A]ll of what was taught always, 4everywhere and by everyone in the early Church must be Christian truth, but not all of Christian truth has been so taught. Yves Congar, in later years, also noted the 5possibility of interpreting the Canon positively, as a recognition of clear evidence for certain Christian teachings, while at the same time describing its excessively static, not to say archaizing, character, [which has] limited validity. 6!

As you might have noticed, in this paper I have only been dealing with one, partial sentence of Vincent of Lrins Commonitorium. In fact, in another section of this work, Vincent argues for a principle of development in words that sound like a nineteenth or twentieth century theologian arguing for the same: !

But someone will perhaps say: is there no progress of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly there is progress, even exceedingly great progressYet, it must be an advance [profectus] in the proper sense of the word and not an alteration [permutatio] in faiththis progress must be made according to its own type, that is, in accord with the same doctrine, in the same meaning, and in the same judgment [eodem sensu et eademque sententia]. 7!

In a helpful article entitled Tradition and Doctrinal Development: Can Vincent of Lrins Still Teach the Church?, Thomas Guarino argues that Vincent has experienced

! 3

something of an eclipse in contemporary theological discourse precisely because little attention has been directly given to what Guarino refers to as Vincents second rule. 8Indeed, within the above quote, one notices some distinctions that are made in modern accounts of doctrinal development, especially the idea that developments of doctrine do not represent an addition to revelation, but rather, a further understanding of that same revelation. Vincent also later uses organic metaphors (such as a human body, or a seed) to describe doctrinal developments, where the form of the object grows toward a fuller stature, while still retaining its original character. As Guarino points out, this aspect of Vincents thought is used by Newman in the latter parts of his Essay, is quoted by Vatican Is document on revelation Dei Filius, and permeates the documents of Vatican II. Thus, 9in the West, where the category of doctrinal development is accepted, the reception of Vincent of Lrins has not been limited to his Canon, even if this has not always been adequately acknowledged. !

THE ORTHODOX RECEPTION OF VINCENTS CANON !A common trope against Orthodox theology is that it has become a theology of

repetition. Given this, and the fact that most modern Orthodox thinkers have rejected the category of doctrinal development, one might think that these same thinkers would be amenable to using Vincent of Lrins canon as a useful measure of doctrinal orthodoxy. This, however, has not been the case. As I will show, most modern Orthodox thinkers also regard Vincents canon as insufficient for accounting for what is, and is not, a true expression of revelation. In the following paragraphs, I will give a brief survey of the modern Orthodox reception of Vincents canon, while noting many similarities with the Western Christian reception of the canon. !

The Orthodox rejection of doctrinal development has been well summarized in a recent article by Andrew Louth entitled, Is Development of Doctrine a Valid Category for Orthodox Theology? Part of Louths reaction against doctrinal development is a 10reaction against the philosophical movements that are its perceived heirs, namely, Romanticism, with its recognition of our historical dependencies, and Hegelianism, with its notion of the progress of the human spirit. In addition, Louth rejects what he perceives as three characteristics of arguably the foremost theory of doctrinal development, namely, John Henry Newmans. These characteristics are: 1) the notion that our understanding of doctrine progresses, rather than merely changes in expression; 2) the seeming link between doctrinal development and evolution; and 3) the dependency of a magisterial authority to discern and name authentic developments. !

One finds these same objections to doctrinal development scattered throughout modern Orthodox objections to Vincent of Lrins Canon. This is interesting, to say the least, given that modern objections to the Vincentian Canon in the West are usually accompanied by affirmations of doctrinal development. The Orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky, for instance, deals with Vincents Canon in a section of Volume 1 of

! 4

his collected works entitled, The Inadequacy of the Vincentian Canon. Similar to Roman Catholic critiques of the Canon, Florovsky notes that it is something of a tautology. That is, the omnes of the third criterion is to be understood as referring to 11those that are orthodox, implying that orthodox doctrines are held by orthodox 12members of the Church. Also, Florovsky points out the difficulty of trying to locate some of the Churchs dogmas as having been taught semper et ubique: In the latter case, the canon becomes a dangerous minimising formula. 13!

In responding to the Vincentian Canon, Florovsky reacts against the need for Christianity to have such a rule in the first place: This means that we are not to seek for outward, formal criteria of catholicity; we are not to dissect catholicity in empirical universality. Whereas Roman Catholicism sees certain papal pronouncements as tests 14of orthodoxy and discernments of doctrinal development, Florovsky writes, the Church testifies [to the truth] in silent receptio. Decisive value resides in inner catholicity, not in empirical universality. Similar to the Roman Catholic teaching on the sensus fidelium, 15Florovsky saw doctrine embedded in an intuition of the faithful. However, he did not believe this intuition was open to progressive development. !

Vladimir Lossky, in his article entitled Tradition and Traditions, also notes the rather simplistic view of tradition required in order to accept the Vincentian Canon. He writes, Let us note that the formal criterion of traditions which was expressed by St. Vincent of Lerinscan only be applied in full to those apostolic traditions which were orally transmitted during two or three centuries. Like Newman, Lossky notes 16particular examples of teachings that would not make the cut if Vincents Canon was taken literally, such as the inclusion of certain books in the New Testament, or the term homoousios from the Council of Nicaea. 17!

Lossky clearly sees the link between Vincents Canon and the theory of doctrinal development, for he immediately follows up his comments on the Canon with an apology for the Orthodox stance against the theory. Similar to Florovsky, Lossky is concerned with asserting the dynamic character of the Christian tradition, especially since he links it with the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Thus, Lossky does not advocate an unhealthy attachment to preserving the exact language of past dogmatic formulations, as he allows for a renewal in this language according to the needs of the time. He is clear, however, that to renew does not mean to replace ancient expressions of the Truth by new ones, more explicit and theologically better elaborated. Furthermore, Lossky 18reacts against what he sees as the evolutionary scheme behind the idea of doctrinal development, namely, that we today have a knowledge of revelation more perfect than that, for instance, of the Church Fathers. Against this notion, Lossky holds that at every moment of its history the Church gives to its members the faculty of knowing the Truth in a fulness [sic]. 19!

! 5

More recently, John Behr has echoed the sentiments of his intellectual predecessors in asserting the need for Orthodox to reject the category of doctrinal development. In a talk on Orthodoxy given at the University of North Carolina in 1998, Behr interestingly uses Vincents Canon as a proof against doctrinal development. He writes: !

If tradition is essentially the right interpretation of Scripture, then it cannot change and this means, it can neither grow nor develop. A tradition with a potential for growth ultimately undermines the Gospel itselfit leaves open the possibility for further revelation, and therefore the Gospel would no longer be sure and certain. If our faith is one and the same as that of the apostles, then, as Irenaeus claimed, it is equally immune from improvement by articulate or speculative thinkers as well as from diminution by inarticulate believers (Against the Heresies, 1.10.2). We must take seriously the famous saying of St. Vincent of Lrins: We must hold what has been believed everywhere, always and by all. 20!

Behr goes on to admit, similar to Lossky, the presence of ever new, more detailed and comprehensive explanations elaborated in defense of one and the same faith, but that 21this does not constitute development precisely because it is the same faith and the same revelation that is the object of the explanations. !

THOUGHTS ON THE ORTHODOX REJECTION OF DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT !The above remarks on Vincents Canon were made by authors who, I believe, are

safely representative of Orthodox theology today. It is noteworthy, of course, that these same authors are part of what is referred to as the Neopatristic movement. Authors of the Russian school of Orthodox thought, such as Vladimir Soloviev and Sergius Bulgakov, on the other hand, tended to accept the category of doctrinal development. They did this while expressing the same sentiments about the insufficiency of the Vincentian Canon. Therefore, it seems that further investigation is warranted into 22whether the rejection of doctrinal development is an Orthodox phenomenon, or a Neopatristic phenomenon. !

Also, there is some question as to what model of doctrinal development these modern Orthodox authors are criticizing. Aside from Louth, the other Orthodox authors cited in this paper do not directly reference any particular author on doctrinal development. In addition, the same authors seem to be under the impression that doctrinal development implies an addition to revelation, or a belief that we necessarily know more than the Fathers. This is an idea that Newman would have never entertained, as illustrated in his belief that the Apostles had the fullness of revealed knowledge, a fullness which they could as little realize to themselves, as the human mind, as such, can have all its thoughts present before it at once. Behrs quote about ever new, more 23

! 6

detailed and comprehensive explanations elaborated in defense of one and the same faith throughout history is essentially what Newman means by development. !

All of the authors reply to the above point, in their own way, by arguing that changes in doctrinal language do not imply developments, or, fuller understandings of revelation. Against this argument, Dumitru Staniloae, a Neopatristic Orthodox theologian who does accept the category of doctrinal development, writes, It is not only a question of an exterior renewal, or of an aggiornamento of language. It is impossible to separate language and content so clearly as that. In other words, according to 24Staniloae, new expressions throw new light on the content of doctrines, as language is caught up in meaning and truth. It is perhaps no accident that Staniloae is the only Orthodox author I have come across who references the so-called second rule of Vincents Commonitoriumthe rule that deals with a progress in the understanding of doctrine. 25!

CONCLUSION !In conclusion, I wish to point out that the need for continued theological

discussion over doctrinal development is of great ecumenical import. In 1964, the American theologian John Courtney Murray, S.J., wrote, I consider that the parting of the ways between [Roman Catholicism and Protestantism] takes place on the issue of development of doctrine. The category of doctrinal developmentits acceptance in the West, its rejection by the Eastis, I would argue, at least implicitly at the heart of the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, as well. While the doctrinal issues of papal infallibility and primacy currently receive the greatest attention, perhaps it is also time to give attention to the hermeneutics underlying these issues. The Canon of Vincent of Lrins is a good place to start, since the lack of satisfaction with it is, to all appearances, a source of unity among both of the dialogue partners.

Commonitorium 2.3.1

John Henry Newman, Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church, vol. 1 (New York: Longmans, 2Green, & Co., 1901), 51.

John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (Notre Dame, IN: University 3of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 12, 19, 27.

Quoted in Aidan Nichols, O.P., From Newman to Congar: The Idea of Doctrinal Development from the 4Victorians to the Second Vatican Council (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990), 36.

Ibid. 5

Yves Congar, O.P., The Meaning of Tradition, trans. A.N. Woodrow (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1964), 670.

Commonitorium 23.1-12. Translation taken from Thomas G. Guarino, Tradition and Doctrinal 7Development: Can Vincent of Lrins Still Teach the Church? Theological Studies 67, no. 1 (March 2006): 34-72, at 36.

Ibid. 8

Ibid., 41-46.9

Andrew Louth, Is Development of Doctrine a Valid Category for Orthodox Theology? in Orthodoxy 10and Western Culture: A Collection of Essays Honoring Jaroslav Pelikan on His Eightieth Birthday, ed. Valerie Hotchkiss and Patrick Henry (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 2005), 45-63.

Georges Florovsky, Collected Works, vol. 1, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View 11(Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1972), 51.

Ibid.12

Ibid., 51-2.13

Ibid., 52.14

Ibid., 53.15

Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1974), 158-9. 16

Ibid., 159. 17

Ibid., 160.18

Ibid., 161.19

John Behr, Orthodoxy, A Talk Given at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, March 23, 201998; available from: http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/John-Behr/Articles/Orthodoxy.html.

Ibid.21

See, for instance, Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1997), 40-41, 2277, 80. On Solovievs understanding of doctrinal development, see Paul Valliere, Modern Russian Theology: Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov: Orthodox Theology in a New Key (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 178-192.

Letter to Flanagan, February 15, 1868, in Theological Papers of John Henry Newman on Biblical 23Inspiration and on Infallibility, ed. J. Derek Holmes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 158.

Dumitru Staniloae, The Orthodox Conception of Tradition and the Development of Doctrine, 24Sobornost 5 (1969): 652-662, at 660.

Ibid., 659.25

! 7