Page:William John Sparrow-Simpson - Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (1909).djvu/49

 ] all churches must accept. Bellarmine, however, perplexed by the episcopal investigation which undeniably the letter endured, suggested that Leo's letter to the Council was not intended as a final definition, but as a general advice for the Bishops' assistance.

Bossuet points out that this happy solution is refuted by the simple fact that Leo wrote to Flavian before any Council was even thought of. It illustrates Bellarmine's uncritical ingenuity. And since Baronius acknowledges the authoritative character of Leo's letter, and Bellarmine the reality of its scrutiny by the Bishops, the obvious conclusion is that both the papal authority and the consent of the Universal Council are elements in producing a dogma of the Faith. Accordingly, the Pope's decision, taken by itself apart from the consent of the Church, is not infallible. Bossuet claims that Leo's own teaching endorses this, for he wrote the following words: "The things which God had formerly defined by our ministry, He confirmed by the irreversible consent of the entire brotherhood."

To sum up the procedure of the early Church in a question of faith: Bishop Flavian first declared what was of faith as the local Bishop. Leo at Rome endorsed it and gave his definition. After this definition came the examination of the question in the General Council, and judgment was ultimately given. After the definition had been approved by the judgment of the Bishops no further room for doubt or dispute remained.

The impression made upon a Roman writer by Roman research for proof of Infallibility in the writings of the Fathers may be gathered from the following significant passage:

"To sum up. The defenders of the dogma of Infallibility discover valuable hints in history. But they also