Pope Liberius

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Can anyone supply me with the story of Pope Liberius in a nutshell. I read New Advent but it isn't all quite clear yet what his situation was.

[phatcatholic]

these articles are more to the point:

--[url="http://www.cfpeople.org/Books/Pope/POPEp36.htm"]Defending the Faith: Liberius[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/popeguil.htm"]Has Any Pope Been Guilty of Heresy?[/url]

also, see the following quote, question #403 from Radio Replies, Vol. III:
[quote][b]403.[/b] If the Popes were always infallible, how does Pope Liberius measure up to the doctrine?

In every necessary way. In their efforts to refute the Catholic doctrine, enemies of the Church have ransacked history in the hope of finding a Pope who has taught heretical ideas. They thought that they had found such a Pope in Liberius, urging that he subscribed to the Arian heresy condemned by the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. But let us take the facts. Liberius became Pope in the year 352. From the outset he fought against the continued efforts of the Arians to corrupt the faith. The Emperor Constantius, himself an Arian, seized Pope Liberius by force and exiled him to Berea, in Thrace. It is said that, to escape this exile, and induced by fraud and threats, Pope Liberius signed a formula drawn up by the Arians. But historical reserach has shown that it is doubtful whether he signed the document at all. If he did sign, he was not a sufficiently free agent for a lawful exercise of his duty. And in any case, the document he is supposed to have signed was not directly heretical, but ambiguous, admitting of an orthodox as well as a heterodox interpretation according to the viewpoint taken by the reader. St. Athanasius and St. Hilary, who thought he did sign, insist that no charge of heresy could be made against Liberius, on the score that the document was not necessarily heretical. Moreover, the absolute orthodoxy of Liberius is so well known from other sources that it is impossible to say that he ever entertained heretical Arian views, and so erred in matters of faith. On his return from exile he defended the Nicene decisions against Arianism, and remained a most uncompromising defender of the orthodox doctrine until his death in 366 A.D.

To all this you can add one point. Even if Liberius signed the document, and even if that document was heretical, and even if Liberius personally held and believed heretical doctrine, no argument even then could be drawn from the case against the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility.

For the Catholic Church has never defined that the Popes are always infallible in all that they personally believe. The Catholic Church declares that the Pope is infallible when he gives an official definition of doctrine concerning faith or morals, it being required that he acts freely, tht he declares himself to be acting in his capacity as head of the whole Church, and that he intends his definition to be binding upon all the faithful throughout the world. Not one of these last requirements was verified in the case of Liberius, and whatever view one takes of the case historically, it is invalid as a test of infallibility. [/quote]

i hope this helps........pax christi,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

also, see this exerpt, from an [b][url="http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.6/lefebvre.htm"]article[/url][/b] out of envoy magazine:
[quote][b]Pope Liberius[/b]
Probably the most common claim I came across within SSPX circles was the claim that Pope Liberius (reigned A.D. 352-366) was a heretic, sympathetic to Arianism, who falsely excommunicated St. Athanasius. For this reason, the SSPX claims, Pope Liberius became the first pope in the history of the Church not be recognized as a saint. Of course, by analogy the SSPX considers Archbishop Lefebvre a modern St. Athanasius and Pope John Paul II a modern Pope Liberius.

Their argument is that if it happened once, it can happen again. And yet, as our Lord showed me in a rather amusing fashion, such claims have little basis in Catholic Tradition.

Convinced the SSPX claims pertaining to this situation were true, I was reading my copy of Henri Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma one day when I noticed that Denzinger listed Pope Liberius as “St. Liberius.” To say I was surprised would be an understatement — ironically enough, the SSPX had sold me the particular edition of Denzinger I was reading, since they held all subsequent editions as suspect. Yet this portion of Denzinger clearly did not accord with what was being preached from our local SSPX pulpit. So I simply dismissed this listing as a probable typesetting error and continued reading.

A mere ten pages later, I came across a papal epistle authored by Pope St. Anastasius subtitled “The Orthodoxy of Pope Liberius.” In it, Pope St. Anastasius clearly states: “The heretical African faction [of the Arian heresy] was not able by any deception to introduce its baseness because, as we believe, our God provided that that holy and untarnished faith be not contaminated through any vicious blasphemy of slanderous men — that faith which had been discussed and defended at the meeting of the synod of Nicea by the holy men and bishops now placed in the resting place of the saints” (see art. 93 of the thirtieth edition).

So far, so good; God had clearly preserved the Church from Arianism through the actions and prayer of holy men. But who were these holy men, and how does this relate to Pope Liberius? I wondered. To my surprise, Pope St. Anastasius answered the question in the subsequent paragraph this way: “For this faith those who were then esteemed as holy bishops gladly endured exile, that is . . . Liberius, bishop of the Roman Church.”

I was stunned by this pope’s answer, for clearly there was a contradiction here: Was I to believe Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers as the authentic teaching from Catholic Tradition? Or was I to believe the teaching of Anastasius in his papal epistle Dat mihi plurimum — the claim of one who was a saint, a pope, and a writer much closer to the time the Arian heresy took place? When my local SSPX priest failed to provide an adequate solution for this quandary, I could only accept the claim of Pope St. Anastasius as the authentic voice of Catholic Tradition.[/quote]

i'm sure i'll find more as i continue to research. pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Bruce S]

[quote]To all this you can add one point. [b]Even if [/b]Liberius signed the document, and [b]even if [/b]that document was heretical, and [b]even if [/b]Liberius personally held and believed heretical doctrine, no argument [b]even then [/b]could be drawn from the case against the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. [/quote]

Thank you CARDINAL NEWMAN! Make that man a saint NOW.

Retroactive correctness is just such a COOL doctrine, I love it love it love it.

I wish WE had thought of this first, rats, now you have a TM on this, we have to continue to disagree, and OUR side looks disorganized.

We need a selective eraser too, unfair.

History is always tidy that way, isn't it?

Edited April 1, 2004 by Bruce S

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Apr 1 2004, 03:48 PM']
Thank you CARDINAL NEWMAN! Make that man a saint NOW.

Retroactive correctness is just such a COOL doctrine, I love it love it love it.

I wish WE had thought of this first, rats, now you have a TM on this, we have to continue to disagree, and OUR side looks disorganized.

We need a selective eraser too, unfair.

History is always tidy that way, isn't it? [/quote]
hahahahaha

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Thank you for the information!

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Apr 1 2004, 03:48 PM']
Thank you CARDINAL NEWMAN! Make that man a saint NOW.

Retroactive correctness is just such a COOL doctrine, I love it love it love it.

I wish WE had thought of this first, rats, now you have a TM on this, we have to continue to disagree, and OUR side looks disorganized.

We need a selective eraser too, unfair.

History is always tidy that way, isn't it? [/quote]
you kill me dude

[Winchester]

Most biographies make no mention of his horrible collection of porcelain mice...

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Apr 1 2004, 02:48 PM']
Thank you CARDINAL NEWMAN! Make that man a saint NOW.

Retroactive correctness is just such a COOL doctrine, I love it love it love it.

I wish WE had thought of this first, rats, now you have a TM on this, we have to continue to disagree, and OUR side looks disorganized.

We need a selective eraser too, unfair.

History is always tidy that way, isn't it? [/quote]
We've discussed this before.... Oh, it's no use...


Rrrrr.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

There was a Pope, don't remember his name off hand, that suceeded Honorius V, and he is pointed out by Protestants because he was condemned as a heretic. Any info on him?

[cmotherofpirl]

He wasn't a heretic himself, but was guilty of not condemning a heresy vigerously enough to suit his successors.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='thedude' date='Apr 2 2004, 08:21 PM'] There was a Pope, don't remember his name off hand, that suceeded Honorius V, and he is pointed out by Protestants because he was condemned as a heretic. Any info on him? [/quote]
i don't think there is an Honorius V.....

can you be more specific about who you are talking about?