thereselittleflower said:
It shows that it was undestood that the Canon was closed, and that the real need for an itnerpreter of the Scriptures, the Church.
The reasons given then are the same reasons the Catholics and Orthodox give now . .
Does this not show that even at the time the canon was declared, that it was recognized that an Interpretor was needed to avoid error, and that the Interpretor was the Church? How does one who believes in Sola Scriptura reconcile this?
Personally, I agree with the general tenor of St. Vincent at least in some degree. However, it should be noted that his solution to the problem was his famous Rule
"Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge 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 clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike. " Chapter II, A Commonitory For The Antiquity And Universality Of The Catholic Faith Against The Profane Novelties Of All Heresies.
There are a few problems here:
1) to use vincent's rule would force one to either have a very limited doctrinal core, or else give up the rule itself. Simply put, many of the things believed by modern groups of Christians do not fit the criteria of St. Vincent. Of course, the patristic attitude does seem to be significantly less dogmatic about most things than we moderns are, so perhaps Vincent was aiming to push the church back to this.
2) The rule of St. Vincent doesn't solve most of the issues that presently divide us. There was no universal teaching on the issues of justification in in the patristic period. Many argue that in the western church these issues were murky until Trent. Clearly, St. Vincent's rule won't help us here. In addition, the issue of the papacy in relation to the Orthodox runs into a very similar problem. Simply put, the patristic record is anything but a slam dunk for either side.
3) No one today follows St. Vincent's rule consistently because no church's doctrine and practice perfectly dovetails with his criteria. At best various groups hold to his rule when convenient and discard it when it is less helpful to their cause.
4) The rule loses it's effectiveness as the church drives into schism. Simply put, it becomes much less clear what the bounds of the church are and what it means to have oecumenicity or universality. This also becomes even more complex over the period of years seeing that doctrine is slowly developing or changing.
I should add that St. Vincent also states that if a church, part or the whole, accepts a doctrine not in line with the rule, one should cleave to antiquity instead. There are numerous complexities to his argument as well that you must take into account:
WHAT then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty. But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation. Chapter III
Essentially, my broader point is simply that Vincent's Rule isn't easily applied and has many caveats as to it's use. St. Vincent's rule is probably the best ancient example of
ad fontes we have in opposition to the what was perceived as the growing threat of heretical groups.
ken
