Page:William John Sparrow-Simpson - Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (1909).djvu/47

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
II.]
ST VINCENT OF LERINS
27

Another Bishop urged that according to the principle of St Vincent no definition could be made without moral unanimity. We have no proof, said another Bishop, least of all from the first five centuries. And if nothing can ever be defined except that which has been believed always everywhere and by all, by what right can we defend the Papal Infallibility? None but the Bishops, said another, can testify whether a doctrine is held always everywhere and by all. Consequently, he, and others with him, demurred to the opinion that a Pope's utterance could be infallible without the consent of the episcopate.

More emphatic still was the statement of the American Archbishop Kenrick:—

"The famous writer, Vincent of Lerins, in his golden treatise the Commonitorium, which has been highly esteemed for the last fourteen centuries … gives the rule by which a believer should guide himself when conflicting opinions arise among the Bishops: namely, that nothing is to be considered of Catholic faith which has not been acknowledged always everywhere and by all. When the Bishops disagree Vincent affirms that antiquity and universality are to be followed. He makes no reference to the Roman Pontiff whose opinion, according to the Pontifical Party, instantly determines all controversies of faith. This theory assuredly Vincent never heard of. And his contemporaries entirely agreed with him."

The authors of Janus made an equally strong appeal to St Vincent of Lerins.

"If the view of Roman Infallibility had existed anywhere in the Church at that time, it could not have been possibly passed over in a book exclusively concerned with the question of the means for ascertaining the