What do you think?
Rate this book
The Commonitory: For the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies:
Very little is known of the author of the following Treatise. He writes under the assumed name of Peregrinus, but Gennadius of Marseilles, who flourished a.d. 495, some sixty years after its date, ascribes it to Vincentius, an inmate of the famous monastery of Lérins, in the island of that name, and his ascription has been universally accepted.
Vincentius was of Gallic nationality. In earlier life he had been engaged in secular pursuits, whether civil or military is not clear, though the term he uses, “secularis militia,” might possibly imply the latter. He refers to the Council of Ephesus, held in the summer and early autumn of 431, as having been held some three years previously to the time at which he was writing “ante triennium ferme.” This gives the date of the Commonitory 434. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, was still living. Sixtus the Third had succeeded to the See of Rome; his predecessor, Celestine, having died in 432. Gennadius says that Vincentius died, “Theodosio et Valentiniano regnantibus.” Theodosius died, leaving Valentinian still reigning, in July, 450. Vincentius’ death, therefore, must have occurred in or before that year.
Baronius places his name in the Roman Martyrology, Tillemont doubts whether with sufficient reason.7 He is commemorated on the 24th of May.
110 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 21, 2009
About the author
Vincent of Lérins
36 books5 followersSt. Vincent was an ecclesiastical writer in Southern Gaul in the fifth century. Almost all biographical information comes from Gennadius' "De viris illustribus".
He entered the monastery of Lérins (today Isle St. Honorat), writing the "Commonitorium" under the pseudonym of Peregrinus, in 434.
He entered the monastery of Lérins (today Isle St. Honorat), writing the "Commonitorium" under the pseudonym of Peregrinus, in 434.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
August 26, 2025
434 AD:
"But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters."
"Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all."
His book is essentially an ancient hermeneutic. We do not interpret the biblical text based on our own whims and fancies. Instead, we look to each century and point to where the Holy Fathers, who died for these doctrines, taught our interpretation. This tradition is guarded by the Holy Spirit, and every novelty that suggests breaking from this web of continuity is a snare.
"But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters."
"Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all."
His book is essentially an ancient hermeneutic. We do not interpret the biblical text based on our own whims and fancies. Instead, we look to each century and point to where the Holy Fathers, who died for these doctrines, taught our interpretation. This tradition is guarded by the Holy Spirit, and every novelty that suggests breaking from this web of continuity is a snare.
September 2, 2016
I wanted to read this because I knew Vincent of Lerins was credited with saying the saying that we hold to the Christian faith believed "everywhere, always and by all." Well, he wrote that in the beginning and the rest of the document is explaining what this faith entails. He mentions many heresies that were prevalent in the early church. He doesn't really refute them or even cover any new ground, he sort of summarizes what this faith that everyone always believed is. It is an interesting read to get a glimpse of the shaping of Christian tradition.
January 29, 2021
Written in 434, the Commonitorium serves as an explanation of why the church cannonized the Scriptures. Vincent details the original intended purpose, use and place of the Holy Scriptures in the theology of the Church and the life of an individual Christian. The Bible was formally canonized less than a century before Vincent publishes his book at the regional Council of Laodicea 364 and published by St. Athanasius, so this discussion on what Scripture Ontologically is and its relationship to tradition is incredibly valuable.
At this time, the church was still ironing out the wrinkles in the canonization across all of the regions of Christendom, a task hampered by the logistics of getting a vast religion literally ‘on the same page’. Yet already, the Bible was being used in an inappropriate matter; either as the sole/ exclusive source of theology or as merely another part of tradition. Vincent details why the Bishops of the early Orthodox church chose to assemble the Bible dogmatically and what their intent for it was. It’s an ancient reminder of why the church created the Scriptures by a theologian who was there when the cannon was being assembled.
The Commonitorium is valuable for two reasons. Firstly, St. Vincent Lerins displays how aware the contemporaries of Augustine were in recognizing that Augustine was infusing his theology with pagan Manicheanism. It was not only academic anachronistic analysis millennia later which recognized this slight shift; the church understood it was happening and actively tried to correct Augustine. Unfortunately, the Blessed Augustine, the first major theologian who only spoke Latin and never read the scriptures in the Greek, has done centuries of damage by infusing his theology with Platonism/ Manicheanism and was instrumental in the Great Schism which would happen 500 years later.
Second, this detailing of the purpose and use of Scripture is incredibly relevant even 1,500 years later. He defends the "sole" and "completely sufficient" nature of scripture while maintaining that the Apostolic interpretation is critical and necessary to correctly divide the Word of God. He frames this discussion in the divergence between what he calls "Northern" Christianity and "Southern" Christianity, which we would call Western and Eastern today. This discussion is vital to understanding the Great Schism, the Western Schism, and the Protestant Schisms.
It is critical to note that he defines “Sole” very differently than the political and reactionary Roman Catholic Reformers would use the term 1,000 years later. He is using "sole" to mean “sufficient” as an embodiment of the theology of the living church, not a fundamentally separate source of authority. He notes that why the church created the Bible in the first place was to assemble and centralize the teachings of the Apostles. It is a function of Apostolic authority, not separate from it (as Protestants would argue 1,000 years later). It was never intended to be interpreted by mechanisms outside of the life of the church which created it. We still have schismatics with a heterodox and overzealous view of the scriptures enabling them to smuggle in faulty exegesis and at the same time, a corresponding antipodal heterodoxy that believes the scriptures are not completely authoritative in the instructions of a Christian. Especially Western Protestantism which is bifurcated between these views.
Florevsky writes this about the position Lerins is articulating:
"Tradition for St. Vincent is not an independent instance nor a complementary source of doctrine. It is no more than Scripture being interpreted according to the catholic mind of the church, which is the guardian of the apostolic "rule of faith." St. Vincent repeats and summarizes the continuous attitude of the ancient church on this matter. Scripture is an adequate source of doctrine: ad omnia satis superque sufficiat. Tradition is the authentic guide in interpretation, providing the context and perspective in which Scripture discloses its genuine message."
St. Vincent of Lerins spends his time pivoting around the idea of Catholicity; that is, how we can recognize the sound doctrine of the true church from the false or misguided doctrine of an illegitimate church. He recognizes dogmatically the "sufficient authority of the scripture" yet raises the problem of authoritative interpretation. He mentions Donatism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism and a wide range of other heresies as examples of how heresies "defend themselves by filching certain passages of Scripture, and expounding them fraudulently and deceitfully, forthwith, the opinions of the ancient in the interpretation of the Canon are to be collected and... without any tergiversation be condemned." He emphasizes that heresy cannot stand the light of the teachings of the Apostles, which give only one authoritative interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. He provides an exposition of 1 Timothy and other OT/NT passages throughout his arguments.
He clearly condemns the idea of Scripture as being the exclusive or only source of authority, pointing out that it was the authority of the universal, apostolic church which allowed the dogmatic creation of a cannon in the first place. This is an idea that is equally dangerous in the opposite direction as the idea that it holds no authority at all and opens the church to heresy of all sorts. Fast forward 1,500 years and look at the 300,000 schisms ranging from Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, the World Mission Society of Jesus Christ and hundreds of thousands of schismatic forms of Protestantism which all base their theology “exclusively” on the Bible, and it’s easy to see that he was correct in this fear. He writes:
"But here some one perhaps will ask, since the canon of scripture is complete and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason; because owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Enomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apploinarius, Priscillian, another, Novinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretations."
The critically interesting part of his dialogue is where he identifies where Western Christianity is starting to deviate from the teaching of the apostles. He writes about the emerging differences between the "North and South" aka the Latin-speakers and everyone else in the East. He talks about the Council of Ephesus, it's universal reception in the "North" focusing on the condemnation of Nestorianism and the canonization of Athanasius, Cyril, Basil and others as Doctors or Confessors of the church. The Commonitorium is a nearly prophetic masterpiece as it details the origins of the philosophic cracks in the foundation of the developing Western Latin-speaking Christian faith, foretelling the problems that would create both Catholicism at the Western Schism and subsequently Protestantism.
He mentions Ambrose fondly, but not Augustine. He seems to indirectly criticize Augustine when he mentioned the Manichees and how important it is to not let their heresies seep into the church, even though otherwise pious men. He implies that Augustine's theology was largely new to the church and was in opposition to the teachings of the apostles. Augustine's understanding of prevalent grace and other soteriological topics became the foundation of the Latin church and eventually, the invisible foundation of all Protestant branches via Anselm, from Lutheranism and Calvinism to the Quakers.
It is interesting how aware the contemporaries of Augustine were in recognizing that Augustine was infusing his theology (particularly his Anthropology, Soteriology, and Paterology) with pagan Manicheanism. This isn't academic anachronistic analysis millennia later that recognized this; the church understood it was happening and actively tried to correct Augustine. Unfortunately, the Blessed Augustine, the first major theologian who only spoke Latin and never understood the scriptures in the ancient Greek, has done centuries of damage by infusing his western theology with Platonism/ Manicheanism and was instrumental in the Western Schism which would happen 500 years later, and the dozens of 1st generation Protestant Reformations 500 years after that, eventually leaving us with hundreds of thousands of denominations vice one.
Another interesting point is his discussion on Theologians who deviated slightly from Orthodoxy, but not enough to completely write them off. While this will be review for anyone well-read on the ancient church, Vincent presents a robust analysis of the teachings of Origin (first among the Greeks) and Tertullian (first among the Latins) and clearly draws a line between their pious works and where their thinking when wrong. Personally, I didn't understand how robust and well-rounded the opinions of Origen and Tertullian were so early in history. I know the modern church understands that Origen and Tertullian both became 'too smart for their own good' and while they were largely Orthodox, they did accidentally stray into heresy, at least temporarily. But both are revered as great theologians despite their misgivings at certain points. St. Vincent spends a chapter each articulating a careful and balanced understanding of how to deal with them and others without condemning them completely or accepting their teachings without reservation. I thought this position developed over long periods of time, but Vincent shows that the church had an even-keeled view of Origen and Tertullian all the way back in the 5th century.
Contrary to what is sometimes claimed by western Christians, there is no evidence of semi-Pelagianism in the Commonitorium. Rather quite the opposite; he largely focuses on condemning Pelagianism to the bone. He refers to Pelagius by a wide range of names such as that "ancient sink of everything vile" and his followers as "rabid dogs" to humorous effect. He writes "Pelagius attributed so much antecedent power to free-will, as to deny the necessity of God's grace to aid it towards good in every single act?" This statement alone, that God enables all good deeds completely absolves him of the charge of semi-Pelagianism (or "works based salvation" as low-church protestants like to call it) that was found among the theologians of Gaul at the time. St. Vincent is articulating the apostolic position of walking the line between the heresy of Pelagius all the way to the opposite heresies of Predistinarianisbeginning to bloom in Augustine's works (the influence of the Manichee & Platonist Religions Augustine spent most of his life in).
A few notable quotes:
"But here someone perhaps will ask, since the canon of scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason; because owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Enomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apploinarius, Priscillian, another, Novinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretations."
"the intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning."
"But the church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view; if there be anything which antiquity has left shape-less and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and development, to consolidate and strengthen it."
This is a notable discussion on Vincent of Lerins by Ecumenist and Academic George Florevsky from his paper "Scripture and Tradition: an Orthodox view". Dialog, Vol.2, No. 4 Autumn 1963, pp.288-293:
"To conclude this brief excursus on the ancient tradition we should mention St. Vincent of Lerins and his famous Commonitorium. Sometimes it is asserted that Vincent admitted the double authority of Scripture and Tradition. Actually he held the opposite view. Indeed, the true faith could be recognized, according to Vincent, in a double manner, duplici modo, that is, by the authority of the divine law (i.e. Scripture) and by ecclesiastical tradition. This does not imply, however, that there are two sources of Christian doctrine. The "rule" of Scripture was for St. Vincent "perfect and self-sufficient." Why then was it imperative to invoke also the "authority of ecclesiastical understanding," (ecclesiasticae intelligentiae auctoritas)? The reason is obvious: Scripture was variously interpreted and twisted by individual writers for their subjective purposes. And to this confusing variety of discordant interpretations and private opinions, St. Vincent opposes the mind of the church catholic (ut propheticae et apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum ecclesiastici et catholici sensus normam derigatur). Thus tradition for St. Vincent is not an independent instance nor a complementary source of doctrine. It is no more than Scripture being interpreted according to the catholic mind of the church, which is the guardian of the apostolic "rule of faith." St. Vincent repeats and summarizes the continuous attitude of the ancient church on this matter. Scripture is an adequate source of doctrine: ad omnia satis superque sufficiat. Tradition is the authentic guide in interpretation, providing the context and perspective in which Scripture discloses its genuine message."
At this time, the church was still ironing out the wrinkles in the canonization across all of the regions of Christendom, a task hampered by the logistics of getting a vast religion literally ‘on the same page’. Yet already, the Bible was being used in an inappropriate matter; either as the sole/ exclusive source of theology or as merely another part of tradition. Vincent details why the Bishops of the early Orthodox church chose to assemble the Bible dogmatically and what their intent for it was. It’s an ancient reminder of why the church created the Scriptures by a theologian who was there when the cannon was being assembled.
The Commonitorium is valuable for two reasons. Firstly, St. Vincent Lerins displays how aware the contemporaries of Augustine were in recognizing that Augustine was infusing his theology with pagan Manicheanism. It was not only academic anachronistic analysis millennia later which recognized this slight shift; the church understood it was happening and actively tried to correct Augustine. Unfortunately, the Blessed Augustine, the first major theologian who only spoke Latin and never read the scriptures in the Greek, has done centuries of damage by infusing his theology with Platonism/ Manicheanism and was instrumental in the Great Schism which would happen 500 years later.
Second, this detailing of the purpose and use of Scripture is incredibly relevant even 1,500 years later. He defends the "sole" and "completely sufficient" nature of scripture while maintaining that the Apostolic interpretation is critical and necessary to correctly divide the Word of God. He frames this discussion in the divergence between what he calls "Northern" Christianity and "Southern" Christianity, which we would call Western and Eastern today. This discussion is vital to understanding the Great Schism, the Western Schism, and the Protestant Schisms.
It is critical to note that he defines “Sole” very differently than the political and reactionary Roman Catholic Reformers would use the term 1,000 years later. He is using "sole" to mean “sufficient” as an embodiment of the theology of the living church, not a fundamentally separate source of authority. He notes that why the church created the Bible in the first place was to assemble and centralize the teachings of the Apostles. It is a function of Apostolic authority, not separate from it (as Protestants would argue 1,000 years later). It was never intended to be interpreted by mechanisms outside of the life of the church which created it. We still have schismatics with a heterodox and overzealous view of the scriptures enabling them to smuggle in faulty exegesis and at the same time, a corresponding antipodal heterodoxy that believes the scriptures are not completely authoritative in the instructions of a Christian. Especially Western Protestantism which is bifurcated between these views.
Florevsky writes this about the position Lerins is articulating:
"Tradition for St. Vincent is not an independent instance nor a complementary source of doctrine. It is no more than Scripture being interpreted according to the catholic mind of the church, which is the guardian of the apostolic "rule of faith." St. Vincent repeats and summarizes the continuous attitude of the ancient church on this matter. Scripture is an adequate source of doctrine: ad omnia satis superque sufficiat. Tradition is the authentic guide in interpretation, providing the context and perspective in which Scripture discloses its genuine message."
St. Vincent of Lerins spends his time pivoting around the idea of Catholicity; that is, how we can recognize the sound doctrine of the true church from the false or misguided doctrine of an illegitimate church. He recognizes dogmatically the "sufficient authority of the scripture" yet raises the problem of authoritative interpretation. He mentions Donatism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism and a wide range of other heresies as examples of how heresies "defend themselves by filching certain passages of Scripture, and expounding them fraudulently and deceitfully, forthwith, the opinions of the ancient in the interpretation of the Canon are to be collected and... without any tergiversation be condemned." He emphasizes that heresy cannot stand the light of the teachings of the Apostles, which give only one authoritative interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. He provides an exposition of 1 Timothy and other OT/NT passages throughout his arguments.
He clearly condemns the idea of Scripture as being the exclusive or only source of authority, pointing out that it was the authority of the universal, apostolic church which allowed the dogmatic creation of a cannon in the first place. This is an idea that is equally dangerous in the opposite direction as the idea that it holds no authority at all and opens the church to heresy of all sorts. Fast forward 1,500 years and look at the 300,000 schisms ranging from Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, the World Mission Society of Jesus Christ and hundreds of thousands of schismatic forms of Protestantism which all base their theology “exclusively” on the Bible, and it’s easy to see that he was correct in this fear. He writes:
"But here some one perhaps will ask, since the canon of scripture is complete and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason; because owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Enomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apploinarius, Priscillian, another, Novinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretations."
The critically interesting part of his dialogue is where he identifies where Western Christianity is starting to deviate from the teaching of the apostles. He writes about the emerging differences between the "North and South" aka the Latin-speakers and everyone else in the East. He talks about the Council of Ephesus, it's universal reception in the "North" focusing on the condemnation of Nestorianism and the canonization of Athanasius, Cyril, Basil and others as Doctors or Confessors of the church. The Commonitorium is a nearly prophetic masterpiece as it details the origins of the philosophic cracks in the foundation of the developing Western Latin-speaking Christian faith, foretelling the problems that would create both Catholicism at the Western Schism and subsequently Protestantism.
He mentions Ambrose fondly, but not Augustine. He seems to indirectly criticize Augustine when he mentioned the Manichees and how important it is to not let their heresies seep into the church, even though otherwise pious men. He implies that Augustine's theology was largely new to the church and was in opposition to the teachings of the apostles. Augustine's understanding of prevalent grace and other soteriological topics became the foundation of the Latin church and eventually, the invisible foundation of all Protestant branches via Anselm, from Lutheranism and Calvinism to the Quakers.
It is interesting how aware the contemporaries of Augustine were in recognizing that Augustine was infusing his theology (particularly his Anthropology, Soteriology, and Paterology) with pagan Manicheanism. This isn't academic anachronistic analysis millennia later that recognized this; the church understood it was happening and actively tried to correct Augustine. Unfortunately, the Blessed Augustine, the first major theologian who only spoke Latin and never understood the scriptures in the ancient Greek, has done centuries of damage by infusing his western theology with Platonism/ Manicheanism and was instrumental in the Western Schism which would happen 500 years later, and the dozens of 1st generation Protestant Reformations 500 years after that, eventually leaving us with hundreds of thousands of denominations vice one.
Another interesting point is his discussion on Theologians who deviated slightly from Orthodoxy, but not enough to completely write them off. While this will be review for anyone well-read on the ancient church, Vincent presents a robust analysis of the teachings of Origin (first among the Greeks) and Tertullian (first among the Latins) and clearly draws a line between their pious works and where their thinking when wrong. Personally, I didn't understand how robust and well-rounded the opinions of Origen and Tertullian were so early in history. I know the modern church understands that Origen and Tertullian both became 'too smart for their own good' and while they were largely Orthodox, they did accidentally stray into heresy, at least temporarily. But both are revered as great theologians despite their misgivings at certain points. St. Vincent spends a chapter each articulating a careful and balanced understanding of how to deal with them and others without condemning them completely or accepting their teachings without reservation. I thought this position developed over long periods of time, but Vincent shows that the church had an even-keeled view of Origen and Tertullian all the way back in the 5th century.
Contrary to what is sometimes claimed by western Christians, there is no evidence of semi-Pelagianism in the Commonitorium. Rather quite the opposite; he largely focuses on condemning Pelagianism to the bone. He refers to Pelagius by a wide range of names such as that "ancient sink of everything vile" and his followers as "rabid dogs" to humorous effect. He writes "Pelagius attributed so much antecedent power to free-will, as to deny the necessity of God's grace to aid it towards good in every single act?" This statement alone, that God enables all good deeds completely absolves him of the charge of semi-Pelagianism (or "works based salvation" as low-church protestants like to call it) that was found among the theologians of Gaul at the time. St. Vincent is articulating the apostolic position of walking the line between the heresy of Pelagius all the way to the opposite heresies of Predistinarianisbeginning to bloom in Augustine's works (the influence of the Manichee & Platonist Religions Augustine spent most of his life in).
A few notable quotes:
"But here someone perhaps will ask, since the canon of scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason; because owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Enomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apploinarius, Priscillian, another, Novinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretations."
"the intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning."
"But the church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view; if there be anything which antiquity has left shape-less and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and development, to consolidate and strengthen it."
This is a notable discussion on Vincent of Lerins by Ecumenist and Academic George Florevsky from his paper "Scripture and Tradition: an Orthodox view". Dialog, Vol.2, No. 4 Autumn 1963, pp.288-293:
"To conclude this brief excursus on the ancient tradition we should mention St. Vincent of Lerins and his famous Commonitorium. Sometimes it is asserted that Vincent admitted the double authority of Scripture and Tradition. Actually he held the opposite view. Indeed, the true faith could be recognized, according to Vincent, in a double manner, duplici modo, that is, by the authority of the divine law (i.e. Scripture) and by ecclesiastical tradition. This does not imply, however, that there are two sources of Christian doctrine. The "rule" of Scripture was for St. Vincent "perfect and self-sufficient." Why then was it imperative to invoke also the "authority of ecclesiastical understanding," (ecclesiasticae intelligentiae auctoritas)? The reason is obvious: Scripture was variously interpreted and twisted by individual writers for their subjective purposes. And to this confusing variety of discordant interpretations and private opinions, St. Vincent opposes the mind of the church catholic (ut propheticae et apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum ecclesiastici et catholici sensus normam derigatur). Thus tradition for St. Vincent is not an independent instance nor a complementary source of doctrine. It is no more than Scripture being interpreted according to the catholic mind of the church, which is the guardian of the apostolic "rule of faith." St. Vincent repeats and summarizes the continuous attitude of the ancient church on this matter. Scripture is an adequate source of doctrine: ad omnia satis superque sufficiat. Tradition is the authentic guide in interpretation, providing the context and perspective in which Scripture discloses its genuine message."
July 15, 2024
Vincent’s rule:
When trying to determine true Christian doctrine, the scriptures have a perfect and sufficient authority. However, because scripture can be interpreted differently by Catholics and heretics, another step is necessary. To determine the correct interpretation, one must see what interpretation was held by Christians across the world at the earliest times. This is primarily the method for foundational doctrines of the faith.
Reflections:
- How do we determine what doctrines are foundational and which aren’t?
- Are people condemned as heretics for erring on non-foundational doctrines?
- What do we do when the early patristic record isn’t clear?
- What do we do when it seems like the received tradition is erroneous?
- Does Vincent leave enough room for development?
When trying to determine true Christian doctrine, the scriptures have a perfect and sufficient authority. However, because scripture can be interpreted differently by Catholics and heretics, another step is necessary. To determine the correct interpretation, one must see what interpretation was held by Christians across the world at the earliest times. This is primarily the method for foundational doctrines of the faith.
Reflections:
- How do we determine what doctrines are foundational and which aren’t?
- Are people condemned as heretics for erring on non-foundational doctrines?
- What do we do when the early patristic record isn’t clear?
- What do we do when it seems like the received tradition is erroneous?
- Does Vincent leave enough room for development?
September 10, 2024
Goated w da sauce
January 2, 2023
Great defense of Christian catholicity: its essence, its, importance, and its method. The Vincentian Canon well describes the Reformers, who were catholic precisely because they were not Roman.
December 10, 2025
My copy didn't have page numbers and the layout for the notes wasn't as I'd prefer. Content was 10/10.
July 26, 2020
This short but powerful work from the 430's AD lays out the case for "The Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies".
Not only does it dismantle the tendency of heretics to proof text scripture in order to support their erroneous doctrines, but in so doing it convincingly dismantles many of the foundational presuppositions of the reformation regarding Sola Scriptura, as well as the rebellion against the authority of the church (no matter how corrupt Catholicism had become by Luther's time)
Every Christian who cares about Truth and obedience to Christ's authority should read this book. It has cemented my view that the only Church with any real authority on Earth is in fact the Orthodox Church.
Not only does it dismantle the tendency of heretics to proof text scripture in order to support their erroneous doctrines, but in so doing it convincingly dismantles many of the foundational presuppositions of the reformation regarding Sola Scriptura, as well as the rebellion against the authority of the church (no matter how corrupt Catholicism had become by Luther's time)
Every Christian who cares about Truth and obedience to Christ's authority should read this book. It has cemented my view that the only Church with any real authority on Earth is in fact the Orthodox Church.
May 31, 2022
Western Manichean Theology and the Distortion of the Relationship between Scripture & Tradition
Written in 434, the Commonitorium serves as an explanation of why the church cannonized the Scriptures. Vincent details the original intended purpose, use and place of the Holy Scriptures in the theology of the Church and the life of an individual Christian. The Bible was formally canonized less than a century before Vincent publishes his book at the regional Council of Laodicea 364, so this discussion on what Scripture Ontologically is and its relationship to tradition is incredibly valuable.
At this time, the church was still ironing out the wrinkles in the canonization across all of the regions of Christendom, a task hampered logistics of getting a vast religion literally ‘on the same page’. Yet already, the Bible was being used in an inappropriate matter; either as the sole/ exclusive source of theology or as merely another part of tradition. Vincent details why the Bishops of the early Orthodox church chose to assemble the Bible dogmatically and what their intent for it was. It’s an ancient reminder of why the church created the Scriptures by a theologian who was there when the cannon was being finalized.
The Commonitorium is valuable for two reasons. Firstly, St. Vincent Lerins displays how aware the contemporaries of Augustine were in recognizing that Augustine was infusing his theology with pagan Manicheanism. It was not only academic anachronistic analysis millennia later which recognized this slight shift; the church understood it was happening and actively tried to correct Augustine. Unfortunately, the Blessed Augustine, the first major theologian who only spoke Latin and never read the scriptures in the Greek, has done centuries of damage by infusing his theology with Platonism/ Manicheanism and was instrumental in the Great Schism which would happen 500 years later.
Second, this detailing of the purpose and use of Scripture is incredibly relevant even 1,500 years later. He defends the "sole" and "completely sufficient" nature of scripture while maintaining that the Apostolic interpretation is critical and necessary to correctly divide the Word of God. He frames this discussion in the divergence between what he calls "Northern" Christianity and "Southern" Christianity, which we would call Western and Eastern today. This discussion is vital to understanding the Great Schism, the Western Schism, and the Protestant Schisms.
It is critical to note that he defines “Sole” very differently than the political and reactionary Roman Catholic Reformers would use the term 1,000 years later. He is using "sole" to mean “sufficient” as an embodiment of the theology of the living church, not a fundamentally separate source of authority. He notes that why the church created the Bible in the first place was to assemble and centralize the teachings of the Apostles. It is a function of Apostolic authority, not separate from it (as Protestants would argue 1,000 years later). It was never intended to be interpreted by mechanisms outside of the life of the church which created it. We still have schismatics with a heterodox and overzealous view of the scriptures enabling them to smuggle in faulty exegesis and at the same time, a corresponding antipodal heterodoxy that believes the scriptures are not completely authoritative in the instructions of a Christian. Especially Western Protestantism which is bifurcated between these views.
Florevsky writes this about the position Lerins is articulating:
St. Vincent of Lerins spends his time pivoting around the idea of Catholicity; that is, how we can recognize the sound doctrine of the true church from the false or misguided doctrine of an illegitimate church. He recognizes dogmatically the "sufficient authority of the scripture" yet raises the problem of authoritative interpretation. He mentions Donatism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism and a wide range of other heresies as examples of how heresies "defend themselves by filching certain passages of Scripture, and expounding them fraudulently and deceitfully, forthwith, the opinions of the ancient in the interpretation of the Canon are to be collected and... without any tergiversation be condemned." He emphasizes that heresy cannot stand the light of the teachings of the Apostles, which give only one authoritative interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. He provides an exposition of 1 Timothy and other OT/NT passages throughout his arguments.
He clearly condemns the idea of Scripture as being the exclusive or only source of authority, pointing out that it was the authority of the universal, apostolic church which allowed the dogmatic creation of a cannon in the first place. This is an idea that is equally dangerous in the opposite direction as the idea that it holds no authority at all and opens the church to heresy of all sorts. Fast forward 1,500 years and look at the 300,000 schisms ranging from Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, the World Mission Society of Jesus Christ and hundreds of thousands of schismatic forms of Protestantism which all base their theology “exclusively” on the Bible, and it’s easy to see that he was correct in this fear. He writes:
The critically interesting part of his dialogue is when he identifies where Western Christianity is starting to deviate from the teaching of the apostles. He writes about the emerging differences between the "North and South" aka the Latin-speakers and everyone else in the East. He talks about the Council of Ephesus, it's universal reception in the "North" focusing on the condemnation of Nestorianism and the canonization of Athanasius, Cyril, Basil and others as Doctors or Confessors of the church. The Commonitorium is a nearly prophetic masterpiece as it details the origins of the philosophic cracks in the foundation of the developing Western Latin-speaking Christian faith, foretelling the problems that would create both Catholicism at the Western Schism and subsequently Protestantism.
He mentions Ambrose fondly, but not Augustine. He seems to indirectly criticize Augustine when he mentioned the Manicheans and how important it is to not let their heresies seep into the church, even though otherwise pious men. He implies that Augustine's theology was largely new to the church and was in opposition to the teachings of the apostles. Augustine's understanding of prevalent grace and other Soteriological topics became the foundation of the Latin church and eventually, the invisible foundation of all Protestant branches via Anselm, from Lutheranism and Calvinism to modern Evangelicalism.
It is interesting how aware the contemporaries of Augustine were in recognizing that Augustine was infusing his theology (particularly his Anthropology, Soteriology, and Paterology) with pagan Manicheanism. This isn't academic anachronistic analysis millennia later that recognized this; the church understood it was happening and actively tried to correct Augustine. Unfortunately, the Blessed Augustine, the first major theologian who only spoke Latin and never understood the scriptures in the ancient Greek, has done centuries of damage by infusing his western theology with Platonism/ Manicheanism and was instrumental in the Western Schism which would happen 500 years later, and the dozens of 1st generation Protestant Reformations 500 years after that, eventually leaving us with hundreds of thousands of denominations vice one.
Another interesting point is his discussion on Theologians who deviated slightly from Orthodoxy, but not enough to completely write them off. While this will be review for anyone well-read on the ancient church, Vincent presents a robust analysis of the teachings of Origin (first among the Greeks) and Tertullian (first among the Latins) and clearly draws a line between their pious works and where their thinking when wrong. Personally, I didn't understand how robust and well-rounded the opinions of Origen and Tertullian were so early in history. I know the modern church understands that Origen and Tertullian both became 'too smart for their own good' and while they were largely Orthodox, they did accidentally stray into heresy, at least temporarily. But both are revered as great theologians despite their misgivings at certain points. St. Vincent spends a chapter each articulating a careful and balanced understanding of how to deal with them and others without condemning them completely or accepting their teachings without reservation. I thought this position developed over long periods of time, but Vincent shows that the church had an even-keeled view of Origen and Tertullian all the way back in the 5th century.
Contrary to what is sometimes claimed by western Christians, there is no evidence of semi-Pelagianism in the Commonitorium. Rather quite the opposite; he largely focuses on condemning Pelagianism to the bone. He refers to Pelagius by a wide range of names such as that "ancient sink of everything vile" and his followers as "rabid dogs" to humorous effect. He writes "Pelagius attributed so much antecedent power to free-will, as to deny the necessity of God's grace to aid it towards good in every single act?" This statement alone, that God enables all good deeds completely absolves him of the charge of semi-Pelagianism (or "works based salvation" as low-church protestants like to call it) that was found among the theologians of Gaul at the time. St. Vincent is articulating the apostolic position of walking the line between the heresy of Pelagius all the way to the opposite heresies of Predestinarianism beginning to bloom in Augustine's works (the influence of the Manichean & Platonist Religions Augustine spent most of his life in).
-------------
A few notable quotes:
"But here someone perhaps will ask, since the canon of scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason; because owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Enomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apploinarius, Priscillian, another, Novinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretations."
"the intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning."
"But the church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view; if there be anything which antiquity has left shape-less and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and development, to consolidate and strengthen it."
This is a notable discussion on Vincent of Lerins by Ecumenist and Academic George Florevsky from his paper "Scripture and Tradition: an Orthodox view". Dialog, Vol.2, No. 4 Autumn 1963, pp.288-293:
"To conclude this brief excursus on the ancient tradition we should mention St. Vincent of Lerins and his famous Commonitorium. Sometimes it is asserted that Vincent admitted the double authority of Scripture and Tradition. Actually he held the opposite view. Indeed, the true faith could be recognized, according to Vincent, in a double manner, duplici modo, that is, by the authority of the divine law (i.e. Scripture) and by ecclesiastical tradition. This does not imply, however, that there are two sources of Christian doctrine. The "rule" of Scripture was for St. Vincent "perfect and self-sufficient." Why then was it imperative to invoke also the "authority of ecclesiastical understanding," (ecclesiasticae intelligentiae auctoritas)? The reason is obvious: Scripture was variously interpreted and twisted by individual writers for their subjective purposes. And to this confusing variety of discordant interpretations and private opinions, St. Vincent opposes the mind of the church catholic. Thus tradition for St. Vincent is not an independent instance nor a complementary source of doctrine. It is no more than Scripture being interpreted according to the catholic mind of the church, which is the guardian of the apostolic "rule of faith." St. Vincent repeats and summarizes the continuous attitude of the ancient church on this matter. Scripture is an adequate source of doctrine: ad omnia satis superque sufficiat. Tradition is the authentic guide in interpretation, providing the context and perspective in which Scripture discloses its genuine message."
Written in 434, the Commonitorium serves as an explanation of why the church cannonized the Scriptures. Vincent details the original intended purpose, use and place of the Holy Scriptures in the theology of the Church and the life of an individual Christian. The Bible was formally canonized less than a century before Vincent publishes his book at the regional Council of Laodicea 364, so this discussion on what Scripture Ontologically is and its relationship to tradition is incredibly valuable.
At this time, the church was still ironing out the wrinkles in the canonization across all of the regions of Christendom, a task hampered logistics of getting a vast religion literally ‘on the same page’. Yet already, the Bible was being used in an inappropriate matter; either as the sole/ exclusive source of theology or as merely another part of tradition. Vincent details why the Bishops of the early Orthodox church chose to assemble the Bible dogmatically and what their intent for it was. It’s an ancient reminder of why the church created the Scriptures by a theologian who was there when the cannon was being finalized.
The Commonitorium is valuable for two reasons. Firstly, St. Vincent Lerins displays how aware the contemporaries of Augustine were in recognizing that Augustine was infusing his theology with pagan Manicheanism. It was not only academic anachronistic analysis millennia later which recognized this slight shift; the church understood it was happening and actively tried to correct Augustine. Unfortunately, the Blessed Augustine, the first major theologian who only spoke Latin and never read the scriptures in the Greek, has done centuries of damage by infusing his theology with Platonism/ Manicheanism and was instrumental in the Great Schism which would happen 500 years later.
Second, this detailing of the purpose and use of Scripture is incredibly relevant even 1,500 years later. He defends the "sole" and "completely sufficient" nature of scripture while maintaining that the Apostolic interpretation is critical and necessary to correctly divide the Word of God. He frames this discussion in the divergence between what he calls "Northern" Christianity and "Southern" Christianity, which we would call Western and Eastern today. This discussion is vital to understanding the Great Schism, the Western Schism, and the Protestant Schisms.
It is critical to note that he defines “Sole” very differently than the political and reactionary Roman Catholic Reformers would use the term 1,000 years later. He is using "sole" to mean “sufficient” as an embodiment of the theology of the living church, not a fundamentally separate source of authority. He notes that why the church created the Bible in the first place was to assemble and centralize the teachings of the Apostles. It is a function of Apostolic authority, not separate from it (as Protestants would argue 1,000 years later). It was never intended to be interpreted by mechanisms outside of the life of the church which created it. We still have schismatics with a heterodox and overzealous view of the scriptures enabling them to smuggle in faulty exegesis and at the same time, a corresponding antipodal heterodoxy that believes the scriptures are not completely authoritative in the instructions of a Christian. Especially Western Protestantism which is bifurcated between these views.
Florevsky writes this about the position Lerins is articulating:
Tradition for St. Vincent is not an independent instance nor a complementary source of doctrine. It is no more than Scripture being interpreted according to the catholic mind of the church, which is the guardian of the apostolic "rule of faith." St. Vincent repeats and summarizes the continuous attitude of the ancient church on this matter. Scripture is an adequate source of doctrine: ad omnia satis superque sufficiat. Tradition is the authentic guide in interpretation, providing the context and perspective in which Scripture discloses its genuine message.
St. Vincent of Lerins spends his time pivoting around the idea of Catholicity; that is, how we can recognize the sound doctrine of the true church from the false or misguided doctrine of an illegitimate church. He recognizes dogmatically the "sufficient authority of the scripture" yet raises the problem of authoritative interpretation. He mentions Donatism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism and a wide range of other heresies as examples of how heresies "defend themselves by filching certain passages of Scripture, and expounding them fraudulently and deceitfully, forthwith, the opinions of the ancient in the interpretation of the Canon are to be collected and... without any tergiversation be condemned." He emphasizes that heresy cannot stand the light of the teachings of the Apostles, which give only one authoritative interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. He provides an exposition of 1 Timothy and other OT/NT passages throughout his arguments.
He clearly condemns the idea of Scripture as being the exclusive or only source of authority, pointing out that it was the authority of the universal, apostolic church which allowed the dogmatic creation of a cannon in the first place. This is an idea that is equally dangerous in the opposite direction as the idea that it holds no authority at all and opens the church to heresy of all sorts. Fast forward 1,500 years and look at the 300,000 schisms ranging from Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, the World Mission Society of Jesus Christ and hundreds of thousands of schismatic forms of Protestantism which all base their theology “exclusively” on the Bible, and it’s easy to see that he was correct in this fear. He writes:
But here some one perhaps will ask, since the canon of scripture is complete and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason; because owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Enomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apploinarius, Priscillian, another, Novinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretations.
The critically interesting part of his dialogue is when he identifies where Western Christianity is starting to deviate from the teaching of the apostles. He writes about the emerging differences between the "North and South" aka the Latin-speakers and everyone else in the East. He talks about the Council of Ephesus, it's universal reception in the "North" focusing on the condemnation of Nestorianism and the canonization of Athanasius, Cyril, Basil and others as Doctors or Confessors of the church. The Commonitorium is a nearly prophetic masterpiece as it details the origins of the philosophic cracks in the foundation of the developing Western Latin-speaking Christian faith, foretelling the problems that would create both Catholicism at the Western Schism and subsequently Protestantism.
He mentions Ambrose fondly, but not Augustine. He seems to indirectly criticize Augustine when he mentioned the Manicheans and how important it is to not let their heresies seep into the church, even though otherwise pious men. He implies that Augustine's theology was largely new to the church and was in opposition to the teachings of the apostles. Augustine's understanding of prevalent grace and other Soteriological topics became the foundation of the Latin church and eventually, the invisible foundation of all Protestant branches via Anselm, from Lutheranism and Calvinism to modern Evangelicalism.
It is interesting how aware the contemporaries of Augustine were in recognizing that Augustine was infusing his theology (particularly his Anthropology, Soteriology, and Paterology) with pagan Manicheanism. This isn't academic anachronistic analysis millennia later that recognized this; the church understood it was happening and actively tried to correct Augustine. Unfortunately, the Blessed Augustine, the first major theologian who only spoke Latin and never understood the scriptures in the ancient Greek, has done centuries of damage by infusing his western theology with Platonism/ Manicheanism and was instrumental in the Western Schism which would happen 500 years later, and the dozens of 1st generation Protestant Reformations 500 years after that, eventually leaving us with hundreds of thousands of denominations vice one.
Another interesting point is his discussion on Theologians who deviated slightly from Orthodoxy, but not enough to completely write them off. While this will be review for anyone well-read on the ancient church, Vincent presents a robust analysis of the teachings of Origin (first among the Greeks) and Tertullian (first among the Latins) and clearly draws a line between their pious works and where their thinking when wrong. Personally, I didn't understand how robust and well-rounded the opinions of Origen and Tertullian were so early in history. I know the modern church understands that Origen and Tertullian both became 'too smart for their own good' and while they were largely Orthodox, they did accidentally stray into heresy, at least temporarily. But both are revered as great theologians despite their misgivings at certain points. St. Vincent spends a chapter each articulating a careful and balanced understanding of how to deal with them and others without condemning them completely or accepting their teachings without reservation. I thought this position developed over long periods of time, but Vincent shows that the church had an even-keeled view of Origen and Tertullian all the way back in the 5th century.
Contrary to what is sometimes claimed by western Christians, there is no evidence of semi-Pelagianism in the Commonitorium. Rather quite the opposite; he largely focuses on condemning Pelagianism to the bone. He refers to Pelagius by a wide range of names such as that "ancient sink of everything vile" and his followers as "rabid dogs" to humorous effect. He writes "Pelagius attributed so much antecedent power to free-will, as to deny the necessity of God's grace to aid it towards good in every single act?" This statement alone, that God enables all good deeds completely absolves him of the charge of semi-Pelagianism (or "works based salvation" as low-church protestants like to call it) that was found among the theologians of Gaul at the time. St. Vincent is articulating the apostolic position of walking the line between the heresy of Pelagius all the way to the opposite heresies of Predestinarianism beginning to bloom in Augustine's works (the influence of the Manichean & Platonist Religions Augustine spent most of his life in).
-------------
A few notable quotes:
"But here someone perhaps will ask, since the canon of scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason; because owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Enomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apploinarius, Priscillian, another, Novinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretations."
"the intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning."
"But the church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view; if there be anything which antiquity has left shape-less and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and development, to consolidate and strengthen it."
This is a notable discussion on Vincent of Lerins by Ecumenist and Academic George Florevsky from his paper "Scripture and Tradition: an Orthodox view". Dialog, Vol.2, No. 4 Autumn 1963, pp.288-293:
"To conclude this brief excursus on the ancient tradition we should mention St. Vincent of Lerins and his famous Commonitorium. Sometimes it is asserted that Vincent admitted the double authority of Scripture and Tradition. Actually he held the opposite view. Indeed, the true faith could be recognized, according to Vincent, in a double manner, duplici modo, that is, by the authority of the divine law (i.e. Scripture) and by ecclesiastical tradition. This does not imply, however, that there are two sources of Christian doctrine. The "rule" of Scripture was for St. Vincent "perfect and self-sufficient." Why then was it imperative to invoke also the "authority of ecclesiastical understanding," (ecclesiasticae intelligentiae auctoritas)? The reason is obvious: Scripture was variously interpreted and twisted by individual writers for their subjective purposes. And to this confusing variety of discordant interpretations and private opinions, St. Vincent opposes the mind of the church catholic. Thus tradition for St. Vincent is not an independent instance nor a complementary source of doctrine. It is no more than Scripture being interpreted according to the catholic mind of the church, which is the guardian of the apostolic "rule of faith." St. Vincent repeats and summarizes the continuous attitude of the ancient church on this matter. Scripture is an adequate source of doctrine: ad omnia satis superque sufficiat. Tradition is the authentic guide in interpretation, providing the context and perspective in which Scripture discloses its genuine message."
April 3, 2023
Notes:
+ That faith which has been believed everywhere (universality), always (antiquity), by all (consent)
- With regard to antiquity, that interpretation must be held to which has been handed down from the earliest times
- With regard to universality, that which has always been held, if not by all, at least by the most part, in preference to that which has been held only by a few
- With regard to consent, the determination of a General Council on any point will of course be of summary authority, and will hold the first place; next to this, the interpretation which has been held uniformly and persistently by all those Fathers, or by a majority of them, who have lived and died in the communion of the Catholic Church
- We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors
+ Against “Total Depravity”
- “Who, I say, before this Simon Magus, dared to say that God, the Creator, is the author of evil, that is, of our wickednesses, impieties, flagitiousnesses, inasmuch as he asserts that He created with His own hands a human nature of such a description, that of its own motion, and by the impulse of its necessity-constrained will, it can do nothing else, can will nothing else, but sin, seeing that tossed to and fro, and set on fire by the furies of all sorts of vices, it is hurried away by unquenchable lust into the utmost extremes of baseness?”
+ Council of Arles, 314
- Ordered, in its Eighth Canon, that if the baptism had been administered in the name of the Trinity, converts should be admitted simply by the imposition of hands that they might receive the Holy Ghost
Potent Quotables:
By [the authority of Holy Scripture] all questions must be tried in the first instance. And it would be abundantly sufficient, but that, unfortunately, men differ in the interpretation of Holy Scripture. The rule, therefore, must be supplemented by an appeal to that sense of Holy Scripture which is supported by universality, antiquity, and consent: by universality, when it is the faith of the whole Church; by antiquity, when it is that which has been held from the earliest times; by consent, when it has been the acknowledged belief of all, or of almost all, whose office and character gave authority to their determinations.
I will set about the object I have in view; that is to say, to record with the fidelity of a narrator rather than the presumption of an author, the things which our forefathers have handed down to us and committed to our keeping.
August 22, 2021
St Vincent gives a thoughtful, detailed, and practical explanation of how the layman ought to identify true doctrine during times of controversy. His work almost appears prophetic in how relevant it ends up being for debates over the relationship between Scripture and Tradition some 1000+ years later. The "Vincentian Canon" - the litmus test of true doctrine being believed everywhere, always, and by all - is often subject to critique by academics, yet I think many of the criticisms fall flat when reading the whole text. In particular, I found St Vincent's description of "doctrinal development" to be well-articulated, and I think it helps shed light on exactly what he means in the so-called canon. While this short work may not cover everything, it will be the first one that I recommend to friends who are interested in the Orthodox Christian view of Scripture and Tradition.
July 5, 2018
A counter to modern "christian" confusion
A brilliant, yet short and straightforward examination into the importance of purity and continuity of Christian doctrine. No punches are pulled in the contrast of the Christian Church against pseudo-christian nonsense. As one brought up in the haze of Dispensationalist nonsense I am grateful beyond words that Christian truth has been defined and defended throughout the centuries, and no amount of modern Bible thumping can change it.
A brilliant, yet short and straightforward examination into the importance of purity and continuity of Christian doctrine. No punches are pulled in the contrast of the Christian Church against pseudo-christian nonsense. As one brought up in the haze of Dispensationalist nonsense I am grateful beyond words that Christian truth has been defined and defended throughout the centuries, and no amount of modern Bible thumping can change it.
January 17, 2022
St. Vincent set out to answer the question, “How do we know we are believing right doctrine?” His answer is straightforward and workable.
February 12, 2023
Old Religions
A, temptation
– Emperor, Philip, The Arab (244-249 C.) –
Fire!
Christian, Teachers.
Power, Memoir – The Scripture – Itself.
His, Origen’s, genius – Ancient Ways – New, Church.
Whole, Catholic
– Luther, Martin (1483-1546 C.E.) –
Great, Teacher-Prophet.
Doctrines, Admonitions.
Traditions.
Daily – Scriptures – Errors.
Commonitories.
Shrewd.
Profoundly
– Council, African, Carthage (Synod of 256 C.E.) –
Recapitulated.
●
Over-burdened.
Old, Religions.
~
A, temptation
– Emperor, Philip, The Arab (244-249 C.) –
Fire!
Christian, Teachers.
Power, Memoir – The Scripture – Itself.
His, Origen’s, genius – Ancient Ways – New, Church.
Whole, Catholic
– Luther, Martin (1483-1546 C.E.) –
Great, Teacher-Prophet.
Doctrines, Admonitions.
Traditions.
Daily – Scriptures – Errors.
Commonitories.
Shrewd.
Profoundly
– Council, African, Carthage (Synod of 256 C.E.) –
Recapitulated.
●
Over-burdened.
Old, Religions.
~
April 9, 2016
Essential patristic reading
St. Vincent's rule of universality, antiquity and consent is all known, but it is best understood in the context of the Commonitory in which it was set forth. He clearly establishes why we must belief and hold fast to that which has been believed always, everywhere and by all.
St. Vincent's rule of universality, antiquity and consent is all known, but it is best understood in the context of the Commonitory in which it was set forth. He clearly establishes why we must belief and hold fast to that which has been believed always, everywhere and by all.
December 11, 2024
In a day and age where heresy runs more rampant than ever before, The Commonitorium provides great wisdom and understanding to those who seek to understand where and how to find the truth. Highly recommend for any amd all who wish to find and stay on the narrow path and learn how not to fall into the devils traps involving heretical beliefs.
December 14, 2015
A must read in times where even a pope dares to have confusing opinions about fundamental Catholic Theology. Saint Vincent of Lerins remind us to always follow Tradition and what goes in accordance. A brief reminder of what happened in Ephesus Council and how some saints came to save the Church.
November 14, 2019
St. Vincent provides a rather clear and practical means by which a Christian can discern truth from heresy. He applies his rule to various Trinitarian heresies as well.
August 24, 2020
Very helpful for discerning the true faith from the erroneous.
November 14, 2020
"Não suceda que por buscar dizer a doutrina de sempre de uma maneira nova, acabes por dizer também coisas novas."
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews