The Vincentian Canon

As the pandemic waxes and wanes, I have tried to spend more time reading. Specifically, I have focused on Orthodox theology. I will admit, as a Westerner I have not always understood Orthodox perspectives on theology. For me, the lack of concrete catechism and emphasis on mystery is challenging. This is probably exacerbated by my educational background in law, theology, etc. But, I desperately want to understand. To this end, I have been making my way through the book "Thinking Orthodox: Understanding and Acquiring the Orthodox Christian Mind." It provides a detailed, helpful understanding of how Orthodoxy looks at belief. 

In the Old (Roman) Catholic context, we have always placed great emphasis on the Vincentian Canon. It has been repeated extensively throughout our publications and was hammered into my brain during my seminary training. Simply put, the Vincentian Canon goes as follows: "Care must especially be had that that be held which was believed everywhere [ubique], always [semper], and by all [ab omnibus]." The Catholic Dictionary further states: By this triple norm of diffusion, endurance, and universality, a Christian can distinguish religious truth from error."

However, while reading "Thinking Orthodox" a footnote caught my eye last week and I shared it with my friends. It says 

"... Unfortunately, that definition is not useful and Georges Florovsky had the courage to question this famous definition of Tradition. The sentiment is appealing and poetic; however Florovsky correctly observed that 'it is not clear whether this is an empirical criterion or not. If this be so, then the 'Vincentian Canon' proves to be inapplicable and quite false, because in fact Holy Tradition has not always been taught and believed everywhere and by all people.' Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, and Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, Vol. 1,51."

Honestly, I was surprised by this view because the Vincentian Canon fit so well with how I understood Orthodoxy to view itself. This yielded more reading from Western views, and agreements on the above statements from Dom Gregory Dix and Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan (who later became Eastern Orthodox). 

From an Eastern perspective, Bulgakov agrees with Florovsky. He wrote the following:

"The maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins on tradition: “quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus traditum est” [what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all]—is often considered as a guiding rule on the subject. Nevertheless, this principle, systematically applied, cannot have the universal importance which is sometimes attributed to it. First, this maxim excludes all possibility of the historic origin of new dogmatic formula (this includes even the pronouncements of the seven ecumenical councils), for they do not agree with the “semper” of the maxim. So, to demand that tradition should be ecumenical quantitatively—ab omnibus et ubique—does not seem to correspond to the essentials of things, for then local traditions would become impossible (and nevertheless these traditions can, in the course of time, become universal). Besides, it can happen that the truth of the Church is professed not by a majority but by the minority of members (for example, at the time of Arianism). In general the above maxim makes impossible all movement in Church tradition, which is nevertheless movement itself; the life of the Church would be condemned to immobility, and its history would become superfluous and even impertinent. This is why the maxim of Vincent de Lerins, understood formally, does not correspond at all with the whole of the life of the Church. Thus it can be accepted only in a limited and relative sense, in the sense that true dogmas, already proclaimed by the Church as such, are obligatory for all." (The Orthodox Church, p. 29)

My mentioning the above is not to discontinue using the Canon itself. I still use it and consider it to be helpful. I believe that there are things which are immovable, i.e. dogmatic beliefs and the changing of the sacraments. I also do not believe this short piece to be exhaustive--more musings and putting "pen to paper." However, it would be disingenuous to acknowledge that Vincentian Canon should be used as an absolute sentiment of dogmatic finality. For me, it can be most effective when paired with the sentiment by Archbishop Marco Antonio de Dominis (and often misattributed to Saint Augustine) “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” But, of course, this is problematic, too, because one man's essential is another's non-essential.

I find no little irony in how many people use the Vincentian Canon as their statement of faith. The Old Catholics, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, and others all contend that they are the ones who are upholding the faith believed everywhere by all. In fact, Dr. Jordan Cooper is a proponent online of the Canon and he is a Lutheran--a tradition which still others in this list will reject as being apostolic in belief.

While not discontinuing use of the Canon, I have personally enjoyed reading the writings of Orthodox theologians who believe it is not a definitive statement. For Florovsky, "no consensus can prove truth. This would be a case of acute psychologism, and in theology there is even less place for it than in philosophy." Despite this theological challenge, Florovsky does argue that truth can be identified as that deposit of faith which is held by the people of God and is taught by the episcopate as teachers and holders of apostolic succession (who are then responsible to the people). This sentiment was echoed by Metropolitan Philaret who wrote "All the faithful, united through the sacred tradition of faith, all together and all successively, are built up by God into one Church, which is the true treasury of sacred tradition, or, to quote the words of St. Paul, 'The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth!"

"A theologian is one who prays, and one who prays is a theologian.”
- Evagrius

Cruel Clergy

It has been 14 years since my ordination to the priesthood, and I'd like to think I have learned some things. One of the largest changes I've seen in myself is that I am less rigid than I once was. This seems to be part of growing older, and a spiritual director once said to me "the Church had to canonize young people at one point because they were the most doctrinaire and idyllic." 

As part of this lessening of rigidity, I'd like to think that I have less time for nonsense. When I was a child, I thought as a child. I would get in theological and liturgical debates. But I have found that these matter less and less as time becomes more valuable. Another thing which becomes less important is knowing about other clergy. I don't mean for this to sound cruel. But, at one time I tried to know extensively about the orders and lineage of everyone in the Autocephalous Catholic field. I also tried to learn more about them so that I knew who I was dealing with if there was inevitable contact. 

I think one of the challenges of getting to know people (and about people) is that I found that the Autocephalous Catholic movement is full of wounded people. Many of our members are people who have had difficult histories. They have been rejected by their former faith traditions because of their sexuality, their marital status, etc. and we were a place of last resort. They sometimes try to recreate where they left except for their own peccadilloes. This can lead to "everything should be as Rome except my situation." Or, frankly, sometimes there are people who have criminal histories or sordid pasts and cannot minister anywhere else. We have a duty to protect the faithful from people who have a proclivity to act harmfully.

The problem with hurt people is that they hurt people. I frankly have grown exhausted with other clergy. I have found some clergy to be among the cruelest people I've ever encountered. They can take great pride in condemning others, denigrating others, and speaking ill of them. There is fighting, there are snipes at others, and there can be negativity. There is a perceived superiority to the interactions of "I'm real and you're not," which is troubling. And, in some quarters, there seems to be just endless anger.

This is particularly apparent when one cleric perceives another as successful. A friend recently posted on social media about jealousy in the movement. It does seem common that when one person gets a church building, or builds a parish there are numerous people ready to tear them down. Now, this does not mean that there is not a place for frank dialogue. I have had serious conversations with people which were not meant to harm them (although I think they were perceived that way), but were meant to be a wake up call. But frank conversation does not need to be malicious. 

This wounding behavior seems to be in our DNA as independent clergy. I, myself, am a sinner in this regard. I have said wounding things. I have tried to make amends where possible, and have left my gift at the altar to address my brethren. And I have had to shake the dust from my feet when someone will  not be converted to compassion. I hope I have learned and grown. Cruelty is never justified.

In the end, we can disagree with each other. We can have sincerely held beliefs about women's ordination, LGBT inclusion, etc. while still being charitable and without cruelty. After all, people do look to us (rightly or wrongly) to be charitable. We can be cautious about each other to protect ourselves, our families, and our ministries. After all, it seems anyone can be ordained in our movement. We can be aware of people's past while giving them a second chance (except in cases where they should be precluded from ordination). We can guard our hearts without reaching out to condemn others. We can support each other and applaud each other when someone is doing well. And we can carry ourselves as people with decorum.

“The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts." St John Chrysostom.