Responding to Error

In a prior post,^* I brought forth Vincent of Lérins’ governing theme to hold fast to “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all” and to “follow the principles of universality, antiquity, and consent,” but what happens if a divergent instruction surfaces? What does a believer do? The proposed solution is given in Commonitories 3 via a series of questions leading to the proper conclusion.

What, therefore, will the Catholic Christian do if some members of the Church have broken away from the communion of universal faith? What else, but prefer the sanity of the body universal to the pestilence of the corrupt member?

Vincent begins with individuals in a local church or a church within a denomination/synod that goes rogue in teaching or practice. In such a situation the best course is to eschew the error, enticing though it may be, and cling to the safe harbor of certainty. This seems simple, but it leads to the next question which deals with systemic error.

What if a new contagion strives to infect not only a small part but the whole of the Church? Then, he will endeavor to adhere to the antiquity which is evidently beyond the danger of being seduced by the deceit of some novelty.

There have been aberrant teachings affecting swaths of believers including Gnosticism, Arianism, Nestorianism, and more recently, Pietism and Revivalism. What should be done if these contagions become epidemic, threatening the whole of Christ’s body? Flee novelty. For example. when Arius and Nestorius brought forth their ideas, they were compelling with both systems still being followed today in different sections of Christendom. The necessary treatment was someone like Irenaeus, Athanasius, or Cyril of Alexandria who would “Stand in the ways and see, and ask about the eternal pathways of the Lord. See what the good way is and walk in it." (Jer. 6:16 LXX) Since these teachings still inflict damage within Christendom and requires ongoing vigilance, we look to what should be done for an error that has become inbred.

What if in antiquity itself an error is detected, on the part of two or three men, or even on the part of a city or a province? Then, he will take care to prefer the decrees of a previous ecumenical council (if there was one) to the temerity and ignorance of a small group.

As mentioned by the lead-in, there have been and will be occasions when spiritual overseers are negligent or lax and allow error that becomes an embedded tenet for the next generation(s). When these are discovered, the proper approach should be to search out the correct doctrinal position set down in prior generations rather than continuing with the offshoot, then ask why the offshoot occurred. Church history is replete with examples of those who thought the church had become lax or negligent, left the established Church, and set out to form something new with examples from the second-century Montanus to the nineteenth-century John Nelson Darby, plus Thomas and Alexander Campbell. While these men recognized an indifference or disregard of piety, their solutions were to eschew what had been handed down and start afresh with new gatherings. Better would have been to re-examine the apostolic teaching as delivered from trusted, venerable sources recognized by the Church catholic, most notably the ancient ecumenical councils. But what if there is no official decision to fall back on?

Finally, what if such an error arises and nothing like a council can be found? Then, he will take pains to consult and interrogate the opinions of his predecessors, comparing them with (one another only as regards the opinions of) those who, though they lived in various periods and at different periods and at different places, nevertheless remained in the communion and faith of the One Catholic Church, and who therefore have become reliable authorities.

As he will discover, he must also believe without hesitation whatever not only one or two but all equally and with one and the same consent, openly, frequently, and persistently have held, written, and taught.

As one would expect, ecumenical councils did not address all the issues that might arise in a church body, nor were they intended to do so, leaving room for local or regional councils to further determine what was necessary. For those errors not previously covered, the writings of faithful men across diverse periods and locales would be researched to determine a solution. One would expect a certain harmony of teaching when comparing Clement of Rome to John Chrysostom, Basil the Great to Ambrose of Milan, Ephrem the Syrian to Bede. Out of this comparative work, one should find agreement or sufficient rapport to adduce a correction.

After the above reading, I can expect some to be thinking, “He sure sounds Roman Catholic.” No, it sounds like the Reformation era. While it is true that the church of Rome has relied on history and tradition to build their body of doctrine, they have no mechanism for correcting bad doctrine: what has been decreed or directed must be true because decisions from the papal see cannot err—even when they obviously do. The corrective principles outlined by Vincent are more in line with what Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, et al strove to provide in the “Augsburg Confession” with the follow-up “Apology of the Augsburg Confession” and then in the assembled works that make up the entire Book of Concord. Reformed and Presbyterian picked up on this, recognizing its wisdom under the slogan “The Church must always be reformed” (Ecclesia Semper Reformanda, often shortened to Semper Reformanda), not that the Church must always be remaking itself, rather there needs to be a regular examination and assess if we have strayed from catholic, apostolic teaching.

^* This second entry is long overdue.