1

ORTHODOX READINGS OF VINCENT OF LRINS

BY DANIEL J. LATTIER


The emergence of the category of doctrinal development among 19
th
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,
1
aware 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
2
no 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,
4
everywhere 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
5
possibility 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.
8
Indeed, 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,
9
in 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
10
reaction 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
11
those that are orthodox, implying that orthodox doctrines are held by orthodox
12
members 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
14
of 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,
15
Florovsky 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
16
particular 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
18
reacts 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
21
this 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
22
whether 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
24
Staniloae, 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,
2
Green, & Co., 1901), 51.
John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (Notre Dame, IN: University
3
of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 12, 19, 27.
Quoted in Aidan Nichols, O.P., From Newman to Congar: The Idea of Doctrinal Development from the
4
Victorians 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),
6
70.
Commonitorium 23.1-12. Translation taken from Thomas G. Guarino, Tradition and Doctrinal
7
Development: 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
10
and 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,
20
1998; 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,
22
77, 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
23
Inspiration 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,
24
Sobornost 5 (1969): 652-662, at 660.
Ibid., 659.
25
7