You are on page 1of 11

Matthew G. Hysell, M.A., M.Th.

Catholicity Today: Reflections on the Vincentian Canon


Paper delivered at the first annual NTCSA Student Conference

Introduction

In the Roman Canon, the Church prays for the bishops “and all right-worshipping cultivators of

catholic and apostolic faith.”1 How do we, as members of the Church, strive to “cultivate”—as

the Roman Canon says—the “catholic” faith? What is Catholicity? I wish to raise the question

in our context as believers who are acquiring formation in sacred theology.

At least three Fathers of the Church—St Cyril of Jerusalem, St Augustine of Hippo, and

St Vincent of Lérins—have tried to comprehensively propose what it means to be „Catholic.‟

The most famous criteria of Catholicity, however, comes from St Vincent, whose standard

outlines „Catholicity‟ as “that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.”2

This so-called „Vincentian Canon‟ is found in the Commonitory which he composed

around A.D. 434 under the pseudonym “Peregrinus,” meaning “Pilgrim.” In it, St Vincent

argues that the Catholic Faith is handed on “by authority of divine law,” by which he means

Scripture, and “by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.” The full text of the Canon runs thus:

Now in the Catholic Church we take the greatest care to hold that which has been
believed everywhere, always, and by all. That is truly and properly „catholic‟ as shown
by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost
universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow ecumenicity, antiquity, and consent.
We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole
Catholic Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from
those interpretations which is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if
in antiquity itself if we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly
nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

1
«[E]t omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.» Translation given in A. KAVANAGH,
On Liturgical Theology (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992), 81.
2
Cf. JOHANNES QUASTEN, Patrology, vol. 4: The Golden Age of Latin Patristic Literature (Allen, TX: Christian
Classics, 1995), 546-551.
1
The Canon therefore begins by alluding to the definition of the word „catholic‟ and proceeds to

the three criteria of ecumenicity, antiquity, and consent.

Defining <Catholic>

We know that <catholic> comes from the Greek adjective kaqoliko,j; it brings together two

words, the preoposition kata,, from kaq‟, meaning „according to‟, and o[[loj, meaning „whole‟ or

„complete.‟ Taken together, kaq‟ o[[lou (as two words) or kaqo,lou (as one word) has the more

precise meaning of „according to the whole‟. It must be pointed out most forcefully that o[[loj as

„completeness‟ or „wholeness‟ is not meant in the sense of an „aggregate.‟

The term was used by Zeno to refer to Universals; it also appears in Aristotle as lo,goi

kaqo,lou to refer to general propositions or what we now understand to be statements with

universal quantifiers such as “all men are mortal.”

In many editions of the New Testament, the series of apostolic letters beginning with the

First Epistle of Peter have been classified as “General Epistles”—some manuscripts speak of the

“Catholic Epistles” because of the scope of the contents in these letters, that is, generic.

St Ignatius of Antioch is the first known Christian writer to apply the word kaqoliko,j to

the Church: “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Contrary to what popular

apologetics speakers would have us believe, the meaning of St Ignatius‟ statement has less to do

with the “true Church” and more to do with an ecclesiology of communion: The full statement

reads: “Where the bishop is, let the multitude of believers be, even as where Jesus Christ is,

there is the Catholic Church.” What we have forgotten, I would suggest, is the adjectival nature

of the word „catholic.‟ In English, we are accustomed to capitalizing „Catholic Church‟—when

in fact in the Creeds of the Church only «Ecclesiam» is capitalized because it is a proper name.

While of course Ignatius is referring to the Church we are now part of, his intention was to point
2
out the „whole in the part‟ principle of ecclesiology—that in the local Church, the whole Church

is likewise present, especially in each celebration of the Eucharist.

“Concerning the whole”—but the whole of what? Vincent introduced his canon by

pointing out divergent interpretations of Scriptures and the errors they gave rise to and their

subsequent condemnations by the Ecumenical Councils and local synods. The problem, frankly,

is that both heretics and those within the Church read the same Scriptures but conclude different

meanings. “ Therefore,” wrote Vincent, “ it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies

of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should

be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.”

A right understanding of the Scriptures, then, depends upon the „catholicity‟ of

ecumenicity, antiquity, and consent. In other words, what is „catholic‟ is, quite literally,

„according to the whole‟ of ecumenicity, „according to the whole‟ of antiquity and „according to

the whole‟ of consensus. The problem, for Vincent, is identifying what belongs to the Tradition

of the Church.

The first criteria of Catholicity, œcumenicity or, more popularly, universality, I think, has

become ubiquitous to the point of being posited as the only meaning to the word „catholic.‟ For

this reason I wish to devote my attention first to the criteria of antiquity and consent. I will,

however, return to the criteria of universality but in a different sense than what Vincent had in

mind toward the end of this paper.

Antiquity

“Following the Holy Fathers.” Georges Florovsky notes that “it was usual in the ancient Church

to introduce doctrinal phrases with statements like this.” I have found it troubling that we who

belong to the Roman Church sui iuris do not breathe the Fathers of the Church in our homilies or

3
preaching or even casual discourse, except perhaps in apologetics. What is interesting, once we

bear in mind that the Vincentian Canon deals principally with the interpretation of Scripture by

deference to the Fathers, is that this is precisely the method of studies envisioned by the Second

Vatican Council in its decree Optatam totius. “Dogmatic theology should be so arranged that

these biblical themes are proposed first of all. Next there should be opened up to the students

what the Fathers of the Eastern and Western Church have contributed to the transmission and

development of the individual truths of revelation.”3 In other words, „dogmatic theology‟ is to

begin with the method of exegesis, the “great themes of Divine Revelation,” and a daily

assimilation of the sacred text in the life of the theologian, especially in the liturgy. Only after

this has been done, and even before an “history of dogma” is the exposure to the teaching of the

Fathers.

The years preceding the Second Vatican Council saw not only a liturgical renewal, but

also a theological renewal whose method was known as ressourcement—a return to the sources,

not just of Scripture but the Fathers also. The landmark work which launched the ressourcement

movement was Henri de Lubac‟s Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man. He has

been described as “one of the thinkers who created the intellectual climate that made possible the

Second Vatican Council, largely by opening up the vast resources of the Catholic tradition which

had been cramped by post-Tridentine „baroque‟ theology. ”4

Our contemporary Thomistic revival owes to this ressourcement as well partially because

of the work of Fr Servais-Théodore Pinckaers in his reading of Aquinas—the point he labored to

demonstrate was that the Angelic Doctor, in citing the Fathers of the Church, especially Leo the

3
SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Decree on Priestly Training Optatam totius (28 October 1965), no. 16.
4 F. L. CROSS and E. A. LIVINGSTONE, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd rev. ed. (New York,
NY: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1006. See also T. ROWLAND, “Contemporary Theological Circles,” in Ratzinger’s
Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI (New York, NY: Oxford University Pres, 2008), 17-29.
4
Great, Gregory, Augustine, and John of Damascus, was to send his readers to the Fathers

themselves and to read the entire text and context of these references. This is precisely what the

manualist or neo-scholastic tradition failed to do. Consequently, neo-scholasticism fostered a

disintegration of Catholicity because it failed Vincent‟s prescription of antiquity and substituted

it with an illicit appeal to authority—that of Aquinas‟. Aquinas had tried to convey his own

knowledge of the Fathers, a knowledge which Florovsky calls a “Patristic mind.”

Acquiring a “Patristic mind” isn‟t simply knowing what the Fathers taught but also how

the Fathers learned. St Gregory of Nazianzus tells us that the Fathers theologized “in the manner

of the Apostles, not of Aristotle.”5 None of the Fathers were university theologians: they were

either pastors or monastics, all of whom grappled with the Mystery of God in prayer or in

shepherding the Church. As St Evagrius Ponticus once said: “If you are a theologian you truly

pray; if you truly pray you are a theologian.”6 The dichotomy between the head and the heart

was unknown among the Fathers, a dichotomy that still remains relatively unknown in Eastern

Christianity, a dichotomy which, unfortunately, became prevalent after the Council of Trent. It

is a dichotomy that must be expunged from the typically Roman way of doing theology.

Consent

In modern doctrinal criticism, we speak of the “ordinary and universal magisterium” as the

consensus of the college of bishops handing on an article of faith according to the exercise of the

munera docendi proper to the episcopal office. But with Cardinal Newman, this evolved to

mean not only the consensus of the bishops in communion with the Successor of Peter, but also

the consent of the whole body of the faithful. Newman introduced his thinking on the sensus

fidelium in his “Letter to the Duke of Norfolk” and was later enshrined in Lumen gentium: “The
5
Orations, 23:12.
6 ST EVAGRIUS PONTICUS, The 153 Chapters on Prayer, 60.
5
whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the Holy One cannot err in

matters of belief.”7 What is meant here is not a „parallel‟ consensus of the faith by the laity

along with the episcopate, but rather the reception of teaching handed on by the magisterium.

Speaking of the content of faith taught by the magisterium, Lumen gentium says that “To these

definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same

Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.”8

In applying Vincent‟s criterion of „consent‟, we must offer our criticism to the many

purportedly Catholic colleges and organizations who advertise themselves as “faithful to the

magisterium” or some similar slogan. I have argued elsewhere that one cannot be doctrinally

sound by brute force: Simply parroting the Church‟s doctrine can never pass for consent.

Rather, the Church‟s doctrine must be assimilated in the life of the believer. This can be done in

at least three ways.

First, consent comes about by abandoning hearsays and becoming familiar with the

Church‟s teachings “from the horse‟s mouth,” so to speak. For example, many Catholics think

that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception speaks of the Mother of God being born “without

original sin” when in fact the dogmatic definition in Ineffabilis Deus speaks specifically of being

“born without stain of original sin.”9 „Attunement‟ to the pronouncements of the ecclesia

discens means we pay close and careful attention to the nuances and shades of meaning of what

is pronounced by the Church‟s teaching office. Recently, I had to correct a well-intentioned

youth minister who had insisted that Christ is “physically present” in the Eucharist. The

7
SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium (21 November
1964), no. 12.
8
Lumen gentium, 25.
9
POPE +PIUS IX, Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus (8 December 1984).
6
difference between the „physical‟ presence of Christ and the „substantial‟ presence of Christ was

initially lost upon him simply because of inattention to the canons of Lateran IV and Trent.

Second, merely reiterating of magisterial teaching cannot pass for authentic consent.

Again, we cannot be doctrinally sound „by brute force.‟ It would be barely meritorious for me,

in professing Dyotheletism, to clench my fist and say “…two natural volitions or wills and two

natural actions, without division, without change, without separation, without confusion” 10 until

I am blue in the face, but do not make progress in understanding what the dogma means and be

convinced of the truth of this dogma and allow it change not just how I think, but how my heart

beats. Profession of the dogma of the two wills of Christ promulgated by the Third Council of

Constantinople should mean, subsequently, that Christ is concerned for the temporal and eternal

welfare of souls. The Catholic believer, then, assimilating the dogma of Christ‟s divine and

human wills, finds herself able to harmoniously exercise the works of social justice and

evangelization. Thus ecclesia docens metamorphoses into ecclesia vivens.

Third, consent means being able to gauge the various levels of the Church‟s teachings—

whether it is a dogmatic definition, an authoritative doctrine, prudential admonition, or simply a

theological opinion.11 Both Dei Verbum12 and canon law13 are quite clear on the different kinds

of assent given to the various levels of teachings—whether it be an act of faith or “religious

submission of the intellect and will.” It is a demonstration of terrible irresponsibility to dump all

of the teachings of the Church into one category, either as dogmas or as suggestions.

10
NEUNER and DUPUIS, 635; DENZINGER, 556.
11
R. GAILLARDETZ, “What the Church Teaches: Gradations of Church Doctrine” in Teaching With Authority: A
Theology of the Magisterium of the Church (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1997), 101-128.
12
Lumen gentium, 25.
13
Code of Canon Law, c. 752.
7
Universality

I promised to offer an expansion of the criterion of universality other than merely

„ecumenicity‟—which de Lubac agrees has been overused.14 Neither should we imagine that the

universality of the Church is contingent upon the uniformity of rites, laws, and custom.

Referring to this, Johann Adam Möhler complained : “[…] I must note how superficially and

poorly is the concept of the Catholic Church of those who always have in sight the external

description, the appearance, the external union, and who cannot raise themselves to inner being

and life.”15 So the universality I wish to discus here is not one that is spatial or temporal, but one

that is able to grasp the totality of the Mystery of Christ. The meaning of o[[loj, remember, is

„whole‟ or „complete.‟ It can never mean it in the sense of „an aggregate.‟ Consequently two

additional meanings of „Catholicity‟ as „completeness‟ or „wholeness‟ seem self-evident.

First, post-Tridentine theology has given us an occasionally helpful model of the

theological discipline by classifying the content of faith into various treatises. More recently,

there has been a tendency to categorize the content of faith according to the “four pillars” of the

Creed, the sacraments, morality, and prayer. The problem with these approaches, however, is

that it runs the risk of fragmenting the intrinsic unity of content of faith, a unity that is derived

from the Mystery of Christ who is the fount of Divine Revelation. When we perform the

theological task according to the various disciplines, are we then able to behold the whole

hypostasis of Christ, or just an aggregate of him? In other words, Catholicity, in addition to

being “according to the whole” of what is believed “everywhere, always, and by all,” means a

Faith that sees the structure of doctrine as a unity, a „seamlessness‟ as it were, between the

various articles of faith. It sees not just truths, but Truth. From the Mystery of Christ flows the
14
H. DE LUBAC, Catholicism (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1988), 282.
15
J. A. MÖHLER, Unity in the Church (Washington, D.C., Catholic University of America Press, 1996), 279.
8
doctrine of the Church, of the sacraments, of moral living, and so forth. Fragmenting doctrine

into different „disciplines‟ such as ecclesiology runs the risk of de-Catholicizing—rending

asunder—the Faith. A fragmented theological method leads us to a fragmented Mystery of

Christ.

Second, Jan Witte of the Pontifical Gregorian University has said that Christ, “…bears

Catholicity within himself.” Commenting on this, Avery Dulles points out that the Johannine

and Deutero-Pauline concept of plh,rwma is the “closest biblical equivalent for what we call

catholicity.” Plh,rwma, or „plentitude‟ is defined as “that which fills up”, “that which is brought

to fullness or completion.”16 The Incarnate Word is said to be “full of grace and truth” (Jn 1:14)

and “from his fullness we have all received” (Jn 1:16). It is in this Incarnate Word that “all the

fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (Col 1:19); “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells

bodily” (Col 2:9). The fullness or plentitude that is found in Christ overflows into the Church:

“and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the

Church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all,” to. plh,rwma tou/ ta. pa,nta evn

pa/sin plhroume,nou (Eph 1:22, 23). Catholicity, then, means the plentitude of Christ, the whole

of Christ whose truth and grace is poured out into the Church, “until we all atain to the unity of

the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the

stature of the fullness of Christ…”, plhrw,matoj tou/ Cristou/ (Eph 4:13).

Conclusion

In applying the criteria of antiquity and consent to the Church of today, I have argued for a

continuation of the ressorcement movement and acquiring a “Patristic mind.” In applying the

16
BDAG, 672.

9
criteria of consent I have argued for a responsible handling of the various grades of magisterial

teaching. I have also tried to argue, on the basis of the Roman Canon, that Catholicity is to be

cultivated, because we pray for “…all right-worshipping cultivators of catholic and apostolic

faith…”

Aidan Kavanagh has rightly complained that this sentence has never been adequately

translated into English, probably on account of the Roman tendency to drive a wedge between

liturgy and theology. Even the forthcoming translation of the Roman Missal bungles here. For

us Romans, „orthodox‟ usually has the meaning of „doctrinally correct‟ or „without error‟ when

in fact it means „right worship‟ or „right glorification.‟ The contrary of „orthodoxy‟ is not

„heresy‟ but „heterodoxy‟—wrong worship. This should suggest to us, in light of the prayer

from the Roman Canon we just heard, that catholicity and apostolicity must be cultivated within

the context of liturgical worship. Again, it has become a typically Roman aberration to divorce

theology and liturgy—most of us instinctively turn to a catechism or manual of doctrine to point

out what Catholics believe, rather than to the text of the Missal, the hymns of the breviary, or to

the sacramental signs and gestures, as should be the case. Catholicity, then, can only be received

and cultivated when the sacred liturgy becomes our perennial point of departure and return.

When St Vincent of Lérins gave us the criteria of Catholicity, he did so under the

pseudonym of “Peregrinus”—pilgrim. Like St Vincent, we too are “pilgrims,” in the sense that

we are on a pilgrimage to that plh,rwma of God in Christ, the same Christ “who bears

Catholicity in himself.”

10
Bibliography

Cross, F. L. and E. A. Livingstone. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd rev. ed.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Crowley, Paul. “Catholicity, Inculturation, and Newman‟s Sensus Fidelium.” The Heythrop
Journal (33:2), 29 April 2007.

David, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and
Theology. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1990.

Dulles, Avery. The Catholicity of the Church. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Kavanagh, Aidan. On Liturgical Theology. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992.

Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. New York, NY, HarperCollins Publishers,
1978.

Florovsky, Georges. The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, vol. IV: Patristic Theology
and the Ethos of the Orthodox Church. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Co., 1987.

L‟Hullier, Peter. The Church of the Ancient Councils. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir Seminary
Press, 1996.

Meyendorff, John. Orthodoxy and Catholicity. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir Seminary Press,
1966.

__________. Catholicity and the Church. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir Seminary Press, 1983.

Möhler, Johann Adam. Unity in the Church or The Principle of Catholicism: Presented in the
Spirit of the Church Fathers of the First Three Centuries. Washington, D.C., The
Catholic University of America Press, 1996.

Neuner, J. and J. DuPuis. The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic
Church, 7th rev. and enlarged ed. New York, NY: Alba House, 2001.

Quasten, Johannes. Patrology, vol. IV: The Golden Age of Latin Patristic Literature. Allen,
TX: Christian Classics, 1995.

Rowland, Tracey. Ratzinger’s Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, 2008.

11

You might also like