The context does not change the fact that he finds that while the dictum of Vincentius must be considered true in the abstract, "it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem."
For indeed, Catholic scholarship itself among others provides much testimony contrary to the propagandist RC version of history, and of the stipulated “unanimous consent ” of the fathers.
Let’s allow these two men to speak for themselves:
“But some one will say perhaps, ‘Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church?’ Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alternation, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.” ~ St. Vincent of Lerins
...A true development, then, may be described as one which is conservative of the course of antecedent developments being really those antecedents and something besides them: it is an addition which illustrates, not obscures, corroborates, not corrects, the body of thought from which it proceeds; and this is its characteristic as contrasted with a corruption.” ~ Cardinal John Henry Newman
Where is the conflict?