Alleged Heresy of
Pope Liberius
From Parson's Church History
In the year of our Lord 352, sixteenth of the reign of Constantius, son of Constantine, Liberius was elected to the Papal See to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Julius I. The circumstances of the time were difficult indeed, and none but a Pontiff of pre-eminent sanctity and prudence could have guided the ship of Peter with even moderate success. Arianism, perhaps the most powerful, though not the most immediately destructive heresy, which the world has seen, was rampant throughout the world, and all the influence of the imperial authority was brought to bear to add to its already excessive audacity. At this time, Athanasius of Alexandria was the bulwark of Catholic orthodoxy in the East, and to defend him, therefore, and to be a good Catholic, were regarded as synonymous. The word Homoousion (Consubstantial), which the Council of Nice had added to the Creed, was looked upon as a test of belief in the Divinity of Christ. The word Homoiousion (Similar) was indicative of rank heresy, although there were some who persisted in its use, and in the rejection of the orthodox term, even while they held the Catholic doctrine. In the year 355, having again, after an interval of reconciliation, become opposed to St. Athanasius, the emperor endeavored to attract the Roman Pontiff to his aid. He sent to him the eunuch Eusebius with magnificent gifts, and when these failed, threats were employed. The sentiments of Pope Liberius are to be judged by his own answer to Constantius. "How can we condemn one who has been pronounced free from crime by two Synods, and whom the Roman Church has dismissed in peace? Who would approve of our action, if we were to be hostile to him absent, whom, when present, we have cherished and held in communion? The Ecclesiastical Canons run not thus, nor have we ever received such a tradition from the Fathers. But if the Emperor wishes indeed to exercise his care for Ecclesiastical peace, or if he wishes that which we have written in favor of Athanasius to be erased, let those things also be erased which have been written against him; let there then be held an Ecclesiastical Synod at a distance from the palace, where the Emperor is not at hand, nor any count is officious, nor any judge utters threats, and where the fear of God and the institutes of the Apostles alone suffice for everything, that in that place, before all else, the Faith of the Church be set forth, just as it was defined by the Fathers in the Nicene Council; then let all be ejected who are of the Arian opinion, and let their heresy be anathematized; then finally let a judgment on Athanasius be delivered, or upon any other person deemed guilty: and as many as are found guilty, so many let there be ejected, and as many as are pure, let them be absolved of guilt. For it cannot be allowed that those should sit in the Synod who are impious in belief, nor is it proper to question any one's deeds before we have security as to his religion. Every discord about faith is to be first abolished, and then action may be taken upon other things." The consequence of this worthy reply was the exile of the Pontiff into Thrace. On his way to punishment, Liberius had an interview with the sovereign, and as we know from St. Athanasius he thus repelled the renewed attempts to seduce him: "Cease to persecute Christians. Do not try, through me, to bring heretical impiety into the Church. We Christians are prepared to sustain everything, ere we will suffer ourselves to be called Arians." Liberius also declared, "he thought it more important to keep the laws of the Church than to reside at Rome." When about to depart, he was offered a sum of money for his journey, in the name of the emperor, but he rejected it, saying "Thou hast pillaged the churches of the earth, and now thou offerest me alms as to a guilty one! Go first, and become a Christian." Gibbon deems this spirited answer insulting. The exile of the Pontiff lasted three years, and was terminated by a decree of Constantius, in answer to the entreaties of the Roman matrons, on the occasion of his visit to the ancient capital. And now comes one of the most important questions that have ever challenged the investigation of the historian.
What change had come over Constantius that he so readily liberated the Pontiff, or rather, had any change taken place in Liberius? The character of the emperor had remained the same; it follows, then, say some, that the Pontiff yielded to the importunities of the sovereign, and to the cruelties of exile. This is a fearful accusation, and is made not only by the bitter enemies of the Church, but by those theologians who, writing before the Vatican Council had settled the vexed question of Papal Infallibility, readily seized upon every fact of history which might be brought to bear in favor of "Cismontane" opinions. Gibbon says that "the Roman Pontiff purchased his return by some criminal compliances, and afterwards expiated his guilt by a seasonable repentance." Blondel, Basnage, and other Protestant authors, contend that Constantius did not accede to the prayer of the Romans, until Liberius had subscribed to the second of the Sirmian formulas, which was plainly heretical. Quite naturally, Jansenistic writers take the same view. Bossuet holds that the formula which the Pope signed was the most innocent of the three, but that he erred in thus conniving at a dissemblance of truth, for in this formula the consubstantiality of Christ to the Father was not stated. As at this time the communion of Athanasius was the true one, so, according to the Bishop of Meaux, Liberius was wrong in condemning him. Cardinal La Luzerne, who, though not a rank, was yet a firm Gallican, asserts that even if the Pontiff signed the first of the Sirmian formulas, he became guilty of heresy. There is a school of authors in which Liberius is treated with some consideration, but by which he is blamed for having condemned Athanasius and for communicating with the Eusebians; also for having signed the first formula of Sirmium, in which the word Homoousios, the test of Catholic doctrine, was omitted. The most eminent of this class are Constant and Mazocchi. Of the writers who defend Liberius from each and every charge, both of heresy and weakness, the most distinguished are Cardinal Orsi, F. A. Zaccaria, Peter Ballerini and Palma.
The following are the arguments adduced by the authors who contend that our Pontiff was guilty of heresy: First, St. Hilary, at No. 11 of his book against Constantius, declares that he "does not know in which the Emperor showed the greater impiety; whether in the exile, or in the liberation of Liberius." The same saint, in the Fragment commencing, "For the fear of God," adduces an epistle of the Pope to the Orientals, in which he says: "I do not defend Athanasius, but as Julius, my predecessor of holy memory, had received him, I dreaded lest I should be deemed a prevaricator. But when I knew that you had justly condemned him, I quickly assented to your decree. Therefore, Athanasius being deposed, with regard to which, all of your statutes are to be received by me and the Apostolic See, I say that I am united and at peace with all of you and all the Eastern Bishops. And that you may the more securely know that I proffer true faith in this letter, I have willingly accepted, without any contradiction, as it has been explained by our common brother, Demophilus, that Catholic faith which was discussed, explained, and received at Sirmium by all our brethren and fellow-bishops." There are three other epistles of Liberius in the Fragments of Hilary, all redolent of heterodox sentiment. Again, in the 6th Fragment, Hilary cries, "Anathema from me to thee, Liberius, and to thy companions!" And in Fragment 8, he says, "To the prevaricator and to the Arians I declare anathema." In No. 4 of Fragment 6,we have, "afterwards, when Liberius was sent into exile, all these things, which he had done or promised, he reduced to nothing, writing to the heretical Arian prevaricators who had pronounced unjust sentence against the orthodox Bishop Athanasius." Second, St. Jerome, in his Chronicle, says that "Liberius, conquered by the pain of exile, subscribed the heretical depravity, and entered Rome like a victor." And in his Ecclesiastical Authors, the holy doctor tells us that “the African Fortunatianus, bishop of Aquileia, is to be detested because he solicited, broke down, and compelled to an heretical subscription, Liberius, bishop of Rome." Third, the Acts of Eusebius show us the Pontiff, after his return to the Eternal City, publicly teaching Arianism, and putting the priest Eusebius to death. Fourth, the Pontifical Book, of great weight with Bossuet, says that when Liberius arrived at Rome after his exile, he dared not to enter the city at once, but besought the aid of the princess Constantia; that Felix, the Anti-Pope, was then expelled; that Liberius entered, fraternized with the Arians, and persecuted the orthodox who refused to recognize his authority. At first glance, these four arguments seem to form a terrible indictment against Liberius, but they will not bear the sifting of impartial criticism.
Now as to St. Hilary, his remark as to the impiety of Constantius in the liberation of the Pope does not prove that the saint thought that the Pontiff had assented to the Emperor's conditions. We may answer with Zaccaria that this doubt of St. Hilary may be taken as rather oratorical than practical; that also there would have been some room for it, practically speaking, since the cruelty of Constantius in exiling the Pope was well matched by his wickedness in accompanying the liberation with a false rumor as to his defection. But we can account also for the saying of Hilary, if we reflect upon the outrageous decree of the Emperor that thereafter the government of the Church should be administered in common by Liberius and Felix. Such an abominable fashion of withdrawing from the difficulty that he himself had effected, might well cause Constantius to seem to the saint equally guilty in the exile and the pardon. As for the Fragments attributed to the holy bishop of Poitiers, they are forgeries. In the first place, a clear evidence of falsehood is shown in two of the alleged letters of Liberius herein quoted. They are the epistles beginning "Studious of peace" and "Because I know you." In these, Liberius is made to say that from the very commencement of his reign he had condemned Athanasius, and all authentic documents show that for a long time he was the most strenuous defender of the persecuted bishop. But all these Fragments are to be rejected. The sentiments contained in them are opposed to those found in the saint's authentic writings; they give everything which might militate for the Pontiff s alleged Arianism, but say nothing of his celebrated orthodox letter. Rufinus declares himself dubious as to the defection of our Pope; now if he knew anything of the existence of these Fragments, he would not have been doubtful, and he says nothing of them. St. Jerome enumerates the works of Hilary, but is silent as to the Fragments.
As for the testimony of St. Jerome, expressly stating that Liberius signed an heretical formula, we may answer with Palma that it is allowable in matters of history to sometimes differ from even this great doctor. But it is far from certain that the Chronicle has come down to us uninterpolated; indeed, we have the testimony of Menochius that nothing pointing to a fall of Liberius is contained in the Christina MSS. of the Vatican, and that is certainly of the sixth or seventh century. Literary forgery was easier in the days of copyists than it is in our time, and the olden heretics were much addicted to the use of this weapon. Origen, Athanasius, and others were often put to trouble by these gentry; the first, indeed, owes to them the greater part, if not all, the suspicion as to his orthodoxy. What more natural then than to suppose the audacious Arians guilty of falsifying, in the case of so important a witness as St. Jerome? If our adversaries are unwilling to accept our supposition, as the only way of accounting for the singular and absolutely isolated position among all Catholic writers of antiquity, in which they place St. Jerome, we can only say that he was deceived, and that his sole opinion should not militate against the many positive arguments to the contrary. As for the accusation against Fortunatianus, taken from the book of the saint on Ecclesiastical Authors, Palma regards it as a proof that also this work of the great doctor has been mutilated. For, he argues, Fortunatianus would not have urged the Pontiff to encourage a heresy which he himself detested. Be this as it may, we may apply to our own use the answer which Alexandre gives to those who adduce this passage of St. Jerome to prove that Liberius must have signed the second (plainly heretical) formula of Sirmium. Believing that the Pope subscribed the first of the three formulas, the Gallican historian says that St. Jerome might well have blamed Fortunatianus for inducing Liberius to sign a formula in which the word Homoousion, which was regarded as a test of orthodoxy, was omitted, and for having brought about the condemnation of Athanasius; it by no means follows from this passage, he insists, that St. Jerome believed the Pontiff to have signed an expressly heretical document.
As to the "Acts of Eusebius," they were discovered in the fifteenth century, and were believed by Bossuet to be genuine. They purport to be a narrative of the martyrdom of a holy priest who suffered with the consent of the late convert to Arianism, our Pontiff Liberius. But these "Acts" show themselves to be of no value, since they speak of a dialogue between the Pope and Constantius in the year 359, and we know that the latter left Rome in 358, and never entered it again.
And what of the Pontifical Book? In the first place, Muratori holds that this Diary of the Popes, as it may be styled, was not begun until the eighth century. If this opinion be correct, we must deny the Book any value in the premises. At any rate, there are so many contradictions in the chapter from which the adverse testimony is taken, that we can place no reliance upon it, and must suppose at least that part to be an Arian forgery. Thus, it is said that Liberius was pardoned by Constantius, but that he dared not enter Rome until he had made his peace with the Emperor through the intercession of Constantia. It is said too that the matter of dissension between the Pope and the Emperor was the question of rebaptism, a subject some time forgotten. We also read of an interview between Constantius and Liberius in the year 359, while the former was warring in Pannonia against the Sarmatians. We are told that the ex-intruder Felix died a natural death, but we know that he became a martyr to the faith.
Having now done justice to the arguments of our opponents, we would, before commencing our positive defence of Liberius, ask what would be the conclusion if all that has been alleged were acknowledged as true. Alexandre and some others will answer that even in this case, it could not be held that the Pontiff became a heretic, for the formula which he signed (if he signed any) was tenable, though it omitted the "Homoousion;" that even if he did condemn the saintly Athanasius, that would have been cowardice and not heresy. But the majority of those who strive so eagerly to besmirch the memory of Liberius, go further than Alexandre to obtain a de facto proof that the Roman Pontiff is not, by divine appointment, an infallible teacher. Now all their arguments go to show, first, that Liberius yielded to violence; second, that his conduct was that of a personal coward, not that of one wishing to teach the Universal Church—they prove, that is, nothing against the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
But we propose to proceed further in this matter than a mere refutation of the Gallican and Protestant theories. It is admitted by all that Liberius was faithful up to the year 358, and the sole praise of his successor, Damasus, is enough to show that in his last years he was free from heretical taint. If any unworthy concessions purchased for him the privilege of returning to his See, we should find some allusions to them in those authors who treat of that return. But these writers furnish testimony to his innocence. Thus, Sulpicius Severus, in his Sacred History, b. 2, c. 49, says: "Liberius, bishop of Rome, and Hilarius, bishop of Poitiers, are exiled... but Liberius is soon restored to the city on account of the seditions of the Romans." Socrates tells us, b. 2, c. 37, that "Not long afterwards, Liberius was recalled from exile, and resumed his chair, when the Roman people, having risen in rebellion, had expelled Felix, and the Emperor, although unwilling, had given his assent." But Theodoret speaks still more plainly in his History, b. 2, c. 15, where he narrates how the Roman senators sent their wives to Constantius as suppliants for the return of the Pope. Thus the nobles argued: "He may not forgive us who are men, but if you women entreat him, he may pardon you." The Emperor received their request, but answered that the Roman See was not a widow, since it had Felix for a spouse.
To this the matrons replied that the Roman citizens would not enter the church while Felix was in it, because though he himself held the faith of Nice, yet he communicated with those who did not hold it. "Then," continues Theodoret, "the Emperor being touched, he ordered that illustrious and praisewothy man to come out of exile, and both (that is, Liberius and Felix) to administer the Church in common. When this epistle was read in the circus, the people exclaimed that the Emperor's decree was just. But the spectators soon divided into two factions... one declaring for this Bishop, the other for that... then with one voice all cried out, One God, One Christ, One Bishop.' After these acclamations of the most Christian people, full of piety and justice, the admirable Liberius returned." This conclusive testimony of Sèverus, Socrates, and Theodoret, is confirmed by Cassiodorus in the fifth book of his Tripartite History. That these four grave historians were well acquainted with the events of the fourth century, no one will deny, and their testimony will bear more to our point, if we consider with the learned Stilting that it is very unlikely that the Arians and Semiarians would have omitted to sustain their cause by quoting any lapse in their favor made by a Roman Pontiff. They seized with avidity upon the fall of the unfortunate Hosius; would they have ignored that of his master? Not one of the many Greek or Latin fathers, who flourished in such number in the centuries immediately following Liberius, alludes to any fall, either directly, or by excuse of it, or by asserting his repentance.
A strong argument for the constancy of the Pontiff is found in the manner of his treatment of the Council of Rimini, held in 359. The fathers of this synod accepted a Profession of Faith which was Catholic in the letter, but which the usual frauds of the Arians easily perverted to a comfort of heresy. Liberius condemned their action, and only pardoned them on condition that they should condemn the accepted Profession, issue one conformable to that of Nice, and cease all communication with the Arians. We find in Socrates an epistle of the Pontiff to the Orientals, in which he says: "For very nearly all of those who were then assembled at Rimini, and were deceived, partly by seduction, and partly by fraud, are now returned to a healthy state of mind, and have anathematized the formula of faith issued by the Council of Rimini; and have subscribed to the form of Catholic and Apostolic faith once edited at Nice; and having entered into our communion, they are now moved by the greatest indignation against the doctrine of Arius and his disciples." Such words are not consistent with the supposition that the writer himself had been guilty, but a few months before, of the same, if not a greater crime.
Of no light weight is the argument drawn from the affection of the Roman people for Liberius, for both the clergy and the laity of Rome were intensely hostile to Arianism and devoted to Athanasius. Sozomenus says, in his History, book 4, c. 15, "The Roman people loved Liberius without measure, as a man in every sense illustrious and one who, for the sake of religion, had bravely resisted the emperor." And Theodoret, in book 2, c. 27, says of the intruder Felix that "He preserved entire and inviolate the formula of faith drawn up by the Nicene fathers. But with those who tainted it, he freely communicated, and for that reason none of the Roman citizens entered the church while he was inside." Would not this affectionate admiration for Liberius have ceased, if he had made shipwreck of his faith, of that faith of Nice which they so jealously cherished? They twice drove Felix from the city for merely communicating with heretics and they continued to love him who had acknowledged and professed the heresy itself?
The reader will have noticed that the heart of the Liberian controversy lies in the Pontiff's subscription to one of the formulas of faith drawn up at Sirmium. It is now proper for us to see to which one of these documents the Pontiff put his name, if indeed he signed any one of them, and to discover its nature. Baronius holds that all three of the formulas in question were edited in the Sirmian synod of 351, held against Photinus, but Nicholas Faber and Alexandre prove that only the first one was issued by that synod. The second document saw the light in the year 357, and the third in the year 359. The first formula sins by omission, as all that it contains is Catholic, but it lacks the "Homoousios;" the second is unmitigatedly Arian, the third is Semiarian. We propose to show that Liberius could not possibly have signed the second or third; that therefore the first, if any whatever, should claim our attention. Pagi and Valois hold that the Pope subscribed the third formula; the following reasons will show they are mistaken: Firstly, Valois himself holds that the third synod of Sirmium was celebrated in the year 359, in the consulship of Eusebius and Hypatius, and that Marcus Arethusius drew up the formula. But the one (if any) signed by Liberius is the one to which the sixth Fragment of Hilary alludes as "that perfidy of Sirmium which Liberius calls Catholic," and which was drawn by many bishops whose names are given. Again, this third formula did not appear until the year 359, and Liberius had been pardoned the year previous. How then could this document be connected with his restoration to freedom? Nor did he sign the second formula, for the reason that its profession of Arianism was so patent, so void of mystification, that no possible art could have cleansed the signer of the stain of heresy. In case the Pontiff had signed that document, there would have been no room for doubt as to his crime, and our opponents must admit that there are some points indicating his innocence. But we are not wanting in reasons extraneous to the nature of the paper. It is not likely, says Alexandre, that Liberius signed that formula which Constantius himself had condemned, through the agency of Basil of Ancyra. The Pontiff was called to Sirmium after the Anomoeans (2) had been driven from Antioch by the Emperor, and when already the second formula had been thrust aside as a hideous abortion. Again, we know from the book on Synods of Hilary that, excepting the avowed Arians, the unfortunate Hosius was the only one to accept this formula. And the document which Liberius is said to have signed was subscribed by twenty-two bishops, all Orientals, while the second formula was drawn by Western prelates, as we learn from Athanasius, Socrates and Hilary. This formula bears the names of Hosius and Potamius, while that attributed to the Pope makes no mention of these bishops. Finally, among the signers of the document assigned to Liberius are numbered Theodore of Heraclea, Basil of Ancyra, and Silvan of Tarsus, all of who must be excluded from any connection with this second formula; Theodore, because he died two years ere it was issued; the others because at the very worst, they were Semiarians, and detested those Anomoean errors which are found in it.
There remains, therefore, only the first formula, promulgated in the year 351, to which Liberius could possibly have subscribed. If this be examined, the charge of heresy, which brought against the Pontiff, must fall to the ground. It reads as follows: "We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, creator and maker of all things, in whom all paternity is in Heaven, and is named on earth. And in His Only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, generated before a ages from God the Father, light from light, through who were made all things in Heaven and on earth, invisible a well as visible; He is the Word and Wisdom, true light and life, and in the later days was made Man and was born of the Holy Virgin, crucified, dead, and buried; He sits at the right hand of the Father, and is to come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, and will render to each on according to his works; whose Kingdom never-ending will last for infinite ages; He sits at the right hand of the Father: not only in this time, but in the future. And in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete, whom, having promised to the apostles, after His ascent to Heaven He sent to teat them and to advise them in all things. Through whom are sanctified all souls which sincerely believe in Him." Now although the word Homoousios is not found in this profession yet there is nothing in it repugnant to the Catholic doctrine on the divinity of the Word. The omission should not have been allowed, for an insertion of the term "Consubstantial" was regarded by the orthodox as a safeguard to the true faith. But all those who omitted it were not regarded, in the time of Athanasius, as necessarily heretical. There never was a more strenuous defender of the word Homoousios than the holy bishop of Alexandria, and yet he says in his book on Synods, No. 41, "It is not right to regard as enemies those who accept all the other Nicene writings, and hesitate only as to the word 'Consubstantial' for we dispute as brothers with brothers, who are of the same opinion as ourselves, bringing a name alone into controversy. For when they avow that the Son is from the substance of the Father, and from no other substance; that He is not a creature or a thing made, but a genuine and real Son, the Word and Wisdom, existing one with the Father, they are not far from receiving the term "Consubstantial."
And now we may conclude our dissertation on the orthodoxy of the holy Liberius. We have seen that the arguments against him are not tenable, that there is abundant positive evidence in his favor, and that if he signed any one of the Sirmian formulas, it was one which was innocent of heresy. As the opinion of the Greek Church in this matter may be of interest to some, we will finish with a quotation from the ancient Menology, a liturgical book in use in both the United and Schismatic Churches, and corresponding to the Roman Martyrology. At the date of Sept. 27th, we read, "The blessed Liberius, defender of the truth, was bishop of Rome while Constantius was Emperor. His zeal caused him to defend the great Athanasius. Afterwards, Liberius contended with all his might against the malice of the heretics, and was exiled to Berea in Thrace. But the Romans, who loved and venerated him, were faithful to him and entreated the Emperor to restore him. He returned to Rome, where he governed his flock in wisdom and died.'
With the question of the fall or innocence of Pope Liberius is intimately connected the controversy as to the place due to Felix, the occupant of the Papal chair during the exile of the former. Bellarmine, Baronio, and a few others, contend that he was, at least for a time, a legitimate Pontiff, and hence they style him Felix II. Papebroch and Zaccaria hold that Felix was a vicar of Liberius. Christian Lupus, Dupin, Alexandre, Tillemont, and Orsi, place him among the Anti-Popes, and it is difficult to refute their arguments. If there was any time when Felix was a legitimate Pontiff, it was when Liberius was in exile, and only then, because Liberius had abdicated. But nothing in history is more certain than that Liberius never abdicated. If he had done so, Felix should have become his successor in a legitimate manner, and not through the intrigues of the Arians and the violence of Constantius. Nor can an argument for the legitimacy of the claims of Felix be deduced from the fact that some of the ancient records number him among the saints. Granting that he is not confounded, in these documents, with Pope St. Felix I, it does not follow, because he became a saint, that he was never an Anti-Pope. Upon the return of the legitimate Pontiff, he may have repented of his usurpation, and during his last years of life, while, as Philostorgius says, "he retained the dignity of bishop, but governed no church," he may have advanced to heroic sanctity.
Disclaimer: Linking of a site does not imply endorsement of the views of the site, but merely offers it as a resource the webmaster believes to be accurate. Because sites can be amended over time and non-Catholic items added, we ask all to do due diligence in checking things out. Ads are maintained to support this site. We have little control over and do not necessarily endorse these ads. As Jesus advised: Let he who reads understand.
