 |
| The same church bearing this mosaic puts an "S" before Liberius' name |
Here in Tradistan, we struggle with the concept of the heretical pope for some reason, probably the spirit of Vatican I—which is not what that Council's fathers enshrined in Pastor Aeternus. There are plenty of heterodox popes in history, among them the notorious John XXII and heresiarch Honorius I—whose papacy earned him the condemnation of an ecumenical council and of three succeeding centuries of popes. St. Marcellinus lapsed from the faith, although he did return. John XII invoked pagan gods during dice games and toasted the devil during feasts! With such a diverse cast of characters in the darker acts of the papacy's twenty century long drama, I continue to be incredulous that traditionalists keep focusing on that ridiculous myth about St. Liberius.
Here is an article from a leading trad blog which gives generally solid advice, but continues that old nonsense that Liberius was the first non-saint pope and that he, under duress, signed a heretical formula of Arianism. As I have recounted elsewhere, this line is complete rubbish and based on myopic scholarship. I will not review the entirety of the saintly pope's troubles, but it suffices to say that he held fast to the faith, he supported the patriarch of Alexandria (the Emperor said "You support Athanasius contra mundum"), was listed in all the martyrologies until the Counter-Reformation, was admired by St. Ambrose, and is described as "S. Liberius" in both the Pauline and Vatican Basilicas. For whatever reason, Bellarmine de facto un-canonized him when the liturgy was trimmed for popular use. Sixtus V and Benedict XIV would un-canonize other saints by removing them from popular devotion, including Origen's teacher, St. Clement of Alexandria. The libelous myth about St. Liberius begins in earnest when the patristic movement of the 19th and early 20th century began reading old texts through modern eyes and could find neither a problem with Liberius nor any devotion to him in modern day. They seem to have assumed that he must have been involved in some misdeed in order to have missed elevation to the altars. The problem may well relate to the perfect society view that prevailed until Pius XII, a view which held the pope to be the perfect leader of a perfect community. The unwillingly heterodox Liberius leaves the perfect society intact by means of legal gymnastics, but Honorius must be ignored entirely (or derided as a myth, as Anthony Cekada once suggested to me).
I think early and medieval Christians, aware of the role of politics in the Church and for the most part under the rule of their local bishops, held a healthier view of the pope than their Counter-Reformation successors, who, we must not forget, were defending the papacy from protestants and not offerings a history exposition. Let us not be afraid of history, for we have nothing to fear from it. Let us confront it head on, suppress the libel around a great pope, and restore the reputation of the man who stood with St. Athanasius contra mundum.
The entry on Pope LIberius in the popular online version of the Catholic Encyclopedia has an interesting section on forged letters supposedly written by said pope, and their effect on later judgments upon his character. Sadly, there seems to be no mention his liturgical cult.
ReplyDeleteIs this the same Catholic Encyclopedia that disparages the Protoevangelium of James and questions the existence of Sts. Joachim and Anna?
DeleteOne and the same. The encyclopedia had a variety of writers and editors, and some entries are clearly more worthwhile than others.
DeleteOk, I can't help myself. Here's a selection from the entry on St. Joachim:
Delete"This tradition [of St. Joachim as the father of the Blessed Virgin] seems to rest ultimately on the so-called 'Gospel of James', the 'Gospel of the Nativity of the Blessed Mary', and the Pseudo-Matthew, or 'Book of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Childhood of the Saviour'; and this origin is likely to rouse well-founded suspicions."
And of St. Anne:
"All our information concerning the names and lives of Sts. Joachim and Anne, the parents of Mary, is derived from apocryphal literature, the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and the Protoevangelium of James.... Since this story [in the Protoevangelium] is apparently a reproduction of the biblical account of the conception of Samuel, whose mother was also called Hannah, even the name of the mother of Mary seems to be doubtful."
You can't believe everything you read on the Internet.
Men prefer the preposterous polemical propaganda about Liberius promoted by the sspx about Athanasius - Mons lefebvre was another Athanasius etc - but they never take the time to read what Saint Athanasius said about Liberius his own self
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28155.htm
Some time ago I realized that SSPXers only remember st. Athanasius when using him to praise mons. Lefebvre; I'm sure that Athanasius would have never recongnized himself in the centralized and near papolatrical kind of Church these men want to preserve.
DeleteK. e.
"Here in Tradistan, we struggle with the concept of the heretical pope for some reason, probably the spirit of Vatican I." From an Orthodox perspective all popes since the Great Schism have been heretical.
ReplyDeleteExtra imperium Byzantium, nulla salus, eh?
DeleteBut, as far as I know, no Byzantine writer thougt ca. 1054 that a schism had just been happened. This was an "ideological construction" forged both in the East and the West some centuries later. Indeed, dr Hull's book shows how in Eastern Europe intercommunion survived as late as the 17th century, when was banned by Rome due to "political" reasons. So Byzantine reasoning on this subject is not quite better than the Tradistani one.
DeleteK. e.
PS: Can't stop laughing since first read "Tradistan"!!!!!
Agreed, Pope Theodoros II is a heretic.
DeleteCome on, your post was a soft ball lobbed over the plate :)
Come to think of it, I would love to find the first surviving historical document that refers to an "Orthodox Church" and a "Catholic Church" as two separate entities.
DeleteJoe,
DeleteSay what you will about the Orthodox hierarchs, however, I'd be willing to bet none have kissed a Koran as did your new "saint" Karol Wojtyla.
Matin, I'd rather avoid a JP II canonization debate. It always brings out the worst elements of the Catholic blogosphere (both ultra-trads and "JP II the Great" neocons).
DeleteAs for canonizations, I think everyone has their lot of highly questionable ones. There's Emperor Constantine for one.
On the subject of Orthodox Hierarchs: With regards to communism you guys have Justinian Marina along with a large number of Red appeasers. On the other hand, you guys have St. Tikhon (the "official process" of Rome be damned, I recognize him). No one's record is perfect.
Your Lordship,
DeleteI'm inclined to agree with you. Personally I find aspects of Rome and Constantinople not to my liking, not to mention the Orientals. However, the problems with Constantinople pale in comparison to those of Rome. I like to think of myself as an Orthodox Catholic, with a foot in both camps but sufficiently distanced from each so as not to poisoned by the polluted waters of the Tiber or the Bosphorus.
"I find aspects of Rome and Constantinople not to my liking, not to mention the Orientals."
DeleteI'm with you on Rome and Constantinople, though my experience with the Orientals is limited. I hang out with the Greek Catholics as a result.
"Constantinople"..... uh?
DeleteSorry, Moscow.
DeleteConstantinople exists... It's smaller than Vatican City but it does exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_St._George,_Istanbul