Vincent of Lérins is commonly employed by Roman Catholics as a stalwart defender of the Magisterium’s infallibility (e.g. Guarino, 2006, 2013; Congar, 1997, 2004; John Henry Newman, 1845; etc.). His Commonitorium provides an early intellectual case for the rule of orthodoxy: universality, antiquity, and consent. More specifically, ecumenical councils provide judgments of the Church as an outworking of the Apostolic tradition. It is evident that Vincent believed they are without error, but did he believe they were also incapable of error?
In this paper, I argue that Vincent’s Commonitorium does not entail the infallibility of ecumenical councils. In sharing selections from the Commonitorium we may see how Roman Catholic scholars have understood Vincent’s claims. Then, I provide a critical response to these interpretations in two steps. First, I show how Vincent’s wording only leads to the belief of council inerrancy. Second, I show how the infallibilists interpretation falls prey to logical fallacies which can be avoided by the council-fallibilists. As an implication, I show how Vincent’s view of tradition and doctrinal development is compatible with the doctrine of sola scriptura. While ecumenical councils may not be invincible to Vincent’s mind, they are inVincentable.