In 434AD St Vincent of Lerins wrote his “Commonitorium” as a guide for the faithful to recognise the authentic Catholic faith from the various heresies that continually threatened to deviate from the perennial faith of the Church. The most famous quote from this work states: "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." Captured in this pithy line, St Vincent of Lerins is identifying the characteristics of universality (catholicity) of belief and doctrinal continuity of belief (apostolicity). When assessing the doctrines of the Church it is not enough that a majority of Catholics at any one time agree on any given article of faith. Vincent of Lerin’s point is that a universal consensus that extends over time is also required.

One is reminded of G.K. Chesterton’s famous quote that “Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead.” In other words, the consensus of Christian faith demanded by the Church includes that which Christians of every century believed. If the Catholic bishops and lay faithful of today were to all agree on a completely new doctrine that contradicted that which had been universally believed for all the centuries prior (for example that there are eight Sacraments, or that the Eucharist is not really the Body of Christ) then this novelty would not conform to “that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.” It would, therefore, logically be exposed as a false doctrine, in no way binding upon the faithful. Early Christian writers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian would speak of the regula fidei, the “Rule of Faith” as those formulations of Christian doctrine (such are the Creeds) which are the touchstones of orthodoxy. Over time the Rule of Faith came to include those doctrines formally defined by the magisterium (teaching authority of the Church) through Ecumenical Councils and Papal decrees, always in conformity to what had preceded them. This is an important principle established by the early Church and one that seems pertinent to revisit in our own times.

At present the (confusingly titled) Synod on Synodality is underway in Rome, and already there is considerable hype and controversy surrounding the outcomes of this Synod. Some are eagerly anticipating major changes to the Church’s moral teachings and to aspects of doctrine particularly concerning the ordination of women. None of this seems particularly helpful at this moment in time where Christianity is under siege by an aggressively secular culture that is using Big Tech and State legislation to silence, persecute, and prosecute Christian voices and values in the public square. Yet the smell of revolution is in the air, accompanied by a gleeful optimism among the liberal faction of the Church that everything is up for grabs. I think this is an ill-founded optimism because the Church by her very constitution does not have the authority to change that which Jesus Christ himself established on apostolic foundations. Consider the stinging rebuke of St Paul in his letter to the Galatians who are excoriated for their willingness to “pervert the Gospel of Christ”:
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel - not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.  As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed… For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gal 1:6-9,12)
St Paul is reminding the Church of all ages, that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a man-made religion designed by a committee, a commission or a Synod. It is of Divine origin and therefore something we receive from Jesus Christ, not something we construct ourselves with crayons and butcher’s paper. Those who think that the Church can change, discard, or invent completely new doctrines clearly do not understand (or believe in) the Divine institution of Christian revelation. Again, to quote St Paul: “For I delivered to you first of all, that which I also received.” (1Cor15:3) St Paul’s writings make it clear that the authority of the Gospel he proclaims comes not from himself, but from Jesus Christ - it is His teaching, His authority and His Church.

Some might object as follows: “But there are many things that the Church has taught in the ensuing centuries and millennia that the apostles never mentioned, that we accept today as Catholic doctrine: for example, the words ‘Trinity’, ‘consubstantial’, or ‘transubstantiation.’” This is true, but misses the distinction between the natural, organic development of doctrine and sudden alteration or reversal in doctrine. The development of new theological language to more clearly articulate the revealed truths of our faith and their meaning, is to be expected; but they do not constitute the creation of completely new articles of faith. St Vincent of Lerins again comes to the rescue and helps to flesh out the Church’s understanding of the authentic development of doctrine. He writes:
“Is there to be no development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly, there is to be development and on the largest scale. Who can be so grudging to men, so full of hate for God, as to try to prevent it? But it must truly be development of the faith, not alteration of the faith. Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another.

The understanding, knowledge and wisdom of one and all, of individuals as well as of the whole Church, ought then to make great and vigorous progress with the passing of the ages and the centuries, but only along its own line of development, that is, with the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same import.



Here St Vincent of Lerins uses a useful metaphor of organic development from nature, to help explain the distinction between ‘development’ and ‘alteration’:

The religion of souls should follow the law of development of bodies. Though bodies develop and unfold their component parts with the passing of the years, they always remain what they were. There is a great difference between the flower of childhood and the maturity of age, but those who become old are the very same people who were once young. Though the condition and appearance of one and the same individual may change, it is one and the same nature, one and the same person. The tiny members of unweaned children and the grown members of young men are still the same members. Men have the same number of limbs as children. Whatever develops at a later age was already present in seminal form; there is nothing new in old age that was not already latent in childhood. There is no doubt, then, that the legitimate and correct rule of development, the established and wonderful order of growth, is this: in older people the fullness of years always brings to completion those members and forms that the wisdom of the Creator fashioned beforehand in their earlier years.

If, however, the human form were to turn into some shape that did not belong to its own nature, or even if something were added to the sum of its members or subtracted from it, the whole body would necessarily perish or become grotesque or at least be enfeebled. In the same way, the doctrine of the Christian religion should properly follow these laws of development, that is, by becoming firmer over the years, more ample in the course of time, more exalted as it advances in age.

In ancient times our ancestors sowed the good seed in the harvest field of the Church. It would be very wrong and unfitting if we, their descendants, were to reap, not the genuine wheat of truth but the intrusive growth of error. On the contrary, what is right and fitting is this: there should be no inconsistency between first and last, but we should reap true doctrine from the growth of true teaching, so that when, in the course of time, those first sowings yield an increase it may flourish and be tended in our day also.

To be continued next week…