Pope Liberius

[Maximus]

]

Christ is in our midst!

I agree that Sts. Athanasius and Antony would be the best patrons as the scholarly hierarch St. Athanasius stood up to Pope Liberius of Rome and his Arian friends, while the ascetical monastic St. Antony (Anthony) was renown for his biography of St. Athanasius. The two holy Egyptian saints kind of go together. Today we need their example of courage and perseverance in the face of evil.

YSIC

Elizabeth

Liberius was no Arian or friend of Arians. He was banished from Rome in 355 for protecting St. Athanasius and refusing to assent to his condemnation.

In 358 Liberius was physically forced by the Emperor Constantius to sign a formulary that would satisfy the Arians; we don't know exactly what the formulary said; it has been lost. Some who dislike the Papacy in general allege that the formulary was heretical. I personally doubt it.

At any rate, both Sts. Athanasius and Jerome agree that Pope Liberius was forced to sign it against his will.

Remember, all of the early popes were Orthodox as well as Catholic. Most of them died as martyrs.

And it was St. Athanasius who wrote the famous biography of St. Anthony, and not vice versa (I just finished reading it today).

 

[MariaRegina]

...
In 358 Liberius was physically forced by the Emperor Constantius to sign a formulary that would satisfy the Arians; we don't know exactly what the formulary said; it has been lost. Some who dislike the Papacy in general allege that the formulary was heretical. I personally doubt it.

At any rate, both Sts. Athanasius and Jerome agree that Pope Liberius was forced to sign it against his will.

Remember, all of the early popes were Orthodox as well as Catholic. Most of them died as martyrs.

And it was St. Athanasius who wrote the famous biography of St. Anthony, and not vice versa (I just finished reading it today).

My joy: Christ is Risen!

I stand corrected. Just got the two temporarily confused. St. Athanasius as a deacon refuted the Arians at the First Ecumenical Council. At the Second Ecumenical Council he continued to defend the faith against Arius.

But Liberius was the first Roman pope not to be declared a saint because he was weak and not strong in the faith. He (as I recall) was the one who excommunicated Athanasius.

YSIC

Elizabeth

 

[Maximus]

My joy: Christ is Risen!

I stand corrected. Just got the two temporarily confused. St. Athanasius as a deacon refuted the Arians at the First Ecumenical Council. At the Second Ecumenical Council he continued to defend the faith against Arius.

But Liberius was the first Roman pope not to be declared a saint because he was weak and not strong in the faith. He (as I recall) was the one who excommunicated Athanasius.

YSIC

Elizabeth

Pope Liberius never excommunicated St. Athanasius. No Pope of Rome did.

If St. Athanasius was ever excommunicated, it would have been by an Arian bishop, but I do not recall if even that occurred.

Liberius endured a harsh exile in Thrace on behalf of St. Athanasius, an exile that broke his health and led to his death.

It is believed the formulary he signed was the Formulary of Sirmium of 357, or the Sirmium Formulary of 351, neither of which was overtly heretical, but both of them were vague enough to allow the Arians wiggle-room. At any rate, Liberius signed it against his will.

Liberius was listed as a martyr by St. Jerome in his fifth-century Martyrology, with a feast day of September 23, but his name is not in later calendars (Why? Who knows?).

No one doubts Liberius' orthodoxy.

 

[MariaRegina]

No one doubts Liberius' orthodoxy.

My dearest joy in Christ: Christ is Risen!

Check out the web site newadvent.org and you will see that Liberius is the only pope since St. Peter not to be canonized. This speaks for itself. He was tarnished. And I checked out the Catholic Encyclopedia and they are really not clear on his bio either.

Therefore, I and others do question his orthodoxy. He should not have compromised in signing that document. He weakened.

YSIC
Elizabeth

 

[nyj]

My dearest joy in Christ: Christ is Risen!

Therefore, I and others do question his orthodoxy. He should not have compromised in signing that document. He weakened.

And why does his signing the document call his orthodoxy into question? Since the document doesn't even exist anymore, no one can tell whether or not it was heretical or not.

You might question his orthopraxy, but we all slip in the faith from time to time. Judge him at your own discretion.

 

[MariaRegina]

...You might question his orthopraxy, but we all slip in the faith from time to time. Judge him at your own discretion.

My dearest joy in Christ:

Christ is in our midst! He is and always shall be!

Re: Pope Liberius

The Church judged him not worthy of canonization. I pray for him as I pray for all the departed. Do you?

I think this whole argument is a carry over from a previous thread on infallibility. According to the Roman Catholic Doctrine of Infallibility, a pope's sinfulness doesn't affect his ability to issue infallible doctrines. In other words, if you believe in Papal Infallibility, a fallible pope can be infallible under special conditions set forth in the Roman Catholic Dogma! According to Orthodox and Catholic teachings, a priest's sinfulness does not affect his ability to validly administer the sacraments and to celebrate the Divine Liturgy.

So why are we arguing? Instead, let's glorify God.

I vote for Sts. Athanasius and Anthony. God is glorified in His Saints.

YSIC

Elizabeth

 

[nyj]

The Church judged him not worthy of canonization. I pray for him as I pray for all the departed. Do you?

Umm, I pray for the souls of the departed daily. What does that have to do with your comments about Pope Liberius though? Many holy men and women have passed from this life into the next without being officially canonized, that doesn't mean they didn't live holy lives though.

 

[Philip]

<mod>

I have split the discussion of Pope Liberius off of the thread containing the discussion of our patrons.

Feel free to continue your discussion, but keep in mind the words of St James:

James 1:19-20 (RSVA)
19 Know this, my beloved brethren. Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, 20 for the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God.​

</mod>

 

[Philip]

Please excuse this double post.

 

[B4Eddie]

My dearest joy in Christ: Christ is Risen!

Check out the web site newadvent.org and you will see that Liberius is the only pope since St. Peter not to be canonized. This speaks for itself. He was tarnished. And I checked out the Catholic Encyclopedia and they are really not clear on his bio either.

Therefore, I and others do question his orthodoxy. He should not have compromised in signing that document. He weakened.

YSIC
Elizabeth

Check out this article on Liberius:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

 

[Maximus]

From chanterhanson: Therefore, I and others do question his orthodoxy. He should not have compromised in signing that document. He weakened.

I never intended to start a whole thread on Liberius!

Still, I think it is a mistake to imagine that Liberius was heterodox when all that can be known of him indicates otherwise.

It is believed the formulary he signed was the Second Formulary of Sirmium (357), which, while not solidly and uncompromisingly Nicene, was not in itself Arian or otherwise heretical.

Liberius refused to condemn St. Athanasius and endured two years of harsh exile in Thrace on his behalf.

When he returned to Rome everything he did was anti-Arian and pro-Nicene.

I think he was a pretty good guy. At the very least his faith should not be called into question without some real hard evidence.

Liberius was certainly no Arian. I expect to meet him in heaven (if God lets me in!).

 

[Philip]

I never intended to start a whole thread on Liberius!

Yeah, I know that. Your post just seemed like the natural place to split the thread

Still, I think it is a mistake to imagine that Liberius was heterodox when all that can be known of him indicates otherwise.

I agree. There is no conclusive evidence. We should not presume to judge his beliefs.