Does the Vincentian Canon DESTROY Catholicism?
Scheeben and Franzelin
Often, the Vincentian Canon is used by Protestant authors in order to oppose the claims of the Catholic Church. They will state that most dogmas of the Catholic Church do not positively conform to the standards of antiquity, catholicity, and universality. They will argue that it is not “always” by demonstrating that such a doctrine was not explicitly held at a certain point (or, since proving a negative is difficult, arguing that there is a certain lack of evidence on this point). They will argue it is neither “everywhere” nor “by all” by demonstrating that a certain Father or maybe even a group of Fathers did not hold to the doctrine.
Yet, is this how St. Vincent himself intended his canon to be used? His Commonitorium is meant to be an extensive commentary on this rule, so it is only by a clear and universal reading of this work that we are able to gather together the details of how the rule ought to be used.
As a general point, the Protestant reading of this rule when used against Catholics will read this rule exclusively and copulatively, rather than affirmatively and distributively.
First, to read this rule exclusively is to say that it is those and only those doctrines with such attributes are to be believed. To read this rule affirmatively is to say that we ought to believe those doctrines with such attributes, excluding those that contradict such attributes. In the latter reading, there is no judgement as to whether such attributes can be present in those things not to be believed or that there are things which are to be believed that do not have such attributes. In the former reading, there is nothing to be believed except those things with such attributes and all those with such attributes are those to be believed.
Second, to read this rule copulatively mean that the “and” which is inserted between the three attributes indicates that there is not sufficiency for any number of the attributes taken singly, but only for the all three taken together to indicate a thing to be believed. To read the rule distributively means that each attribute has such a character. Hence, we could just as easily say that “we hold the faith that has been held always” as we could say “we hold that faith which has been held everywhere” and “we hold that faith which has been held by all.”
The exclusive and copulative interpretation of this canon has frequently prevailed over the minds of many without any sort of foundation. From a brief reading, the contrary reading is completely obvious. St. Vincent is clear in a number of different places that there are things to be believed with antiquity where there is no universality, things to be believed with universality even though there is disagreement in antiquity, etc. None of this would make sense under the exclusive and copulative reading.
As Scheeben comments,
According to his own explanation which he gives immediately afterward (chap. 4), Vincent is acquainted both with a very strong disturbance in the material consensus of the Church at a particular time after a previous consensus, and also with a constant further development of Tradition, and he lays down the rules to be observed with respect to both in such a way that we see that he demands the three conditions of catholicity: universitas, antiquitas, and consensio with regard to the explicit faith, not copulatively but rather distributively, and understands also in this case the antiquitas not as absolute but as relative. (Scheeben, Handbook 1.1, n. 316)
This last point is of quite a degree of interest. What is meant when he says “the antiquitas not as absolute but as relative.” While many read “antiquity” as “absolute,” i.e., from the beginning of the time of the Apostles, yet “antiquity” can also be relative, i.e., before the time a heresy arises. Hence “antiquity” is set in contrast to “novelty.” A novelty is something that arises against antiquity.
So, a question arises, is the antiquity spoken of relative or absolute? Each position has its merit and each has its arguments, yet the clearest reading is that both senses are used and it must be determined from the context of the passage. Generally, relative antiquity is used as the note and absolute antiquity as the thing signified, i.e., that such and such is before a novelty with no opposition shows that it is believed from the beginning (whether explicitly or implicitly).
This sheds a completely new light on the note of antiquity. Most will give an exclusively “positive” and “absolute” reading of “following antiquity,” i.e., to determine that such a belief was explicitly held since the time of the Apostles, yet when treating the NOTE, St. Vincent has a more “negative” and “relative” reading of “following antiquity,” i.e., to not contradict what has been handed down before. Hence, he explains such antiquity as “we shall follow…antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers.” A “novelty” is something that contradicts.
There are two important notes to make on this point. First, the comments that St. Vincent makes on Development of Doctrine in chapter 23, which are well known and show that “antiquity” does not somehow mean “explicitly preached since the Apostolic age.” Second, the comments that he makes on the uselessness of claims to Antiquity against certain heresies. He writes,
Nor is this way of dealing with heresy to be resorted to always, or in every instance, but only in the case of those heresies which are new and recent, and that on their first arising, before they have had time to deprave the Rules of the Ancient Faith, and before they endeavour, while the poison spreads and diffuses itself, to corrupt the writings of the ancients. But heresies already widely diffused and of old standing are by no means to be thus dealt with, seeing that through lapse of time they have long had opportunity of corrupting the truth. And therefore, as to the more ancient schisms or heresies, we ought either to confute them, if need be, by the sole authority of the Scriptures, or at any rate, to shun them as having been already of old convicted and condemned by universal councils of the Catholic Priesthood. (ch. 28)
Here we see something interesting. There is a few admissions here that ought to be remembered carefully.
The Vincentian Canon is only meant to be used against novel heresies when they arise, rather than as some exhaustive method of de locis.
The mark of antiquity has a pseudo-form in heresies being “old standing” and hence does not adequately distinguish heresy from truth on its own.
The mark of universality has a pseudo-form in heresies being “widely diffused” and hence has the same effect as #2.
All of this is treated in quite a bit of detail by Cardinal Franzelin in his De Divina Traditione. He divides his thesis into two parts. In the first, he shows various different possible senses of the Canon and how this relates to Catholic doctrine. In the second, he determines the question.
First,
it is very true in the affirmative sense, because the emblematic doctrine in these very marks is certainly a dogma of Catholic faith; nevertheless it is not true in an excluding sense, that nothing can pertain to the deposit of faith, because it was not explicitly believed everywhere, always and by all.
Second,
If…the sense of the rule in the context of the Commonitorium itself is examined, nothing other than the two-fold mark is shown, each sufficient to recognize as distinct absolute antiquity or apostolicity of doctrine, 1. A present consensus of the Church, 2. A consensus of relative antiquity existing before the beginning of a controversy.
