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
