Infallibility question raised by Pope Liberius case

[Sapphire_Dragon]

Hello,

Recently I was having a discussion with a friend about Pope Liberius and the issue of his “fall.”

I’ve read in the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on him that there is much debate about what exactly happened.

But the issue that came up in our discussion that I wanted to ask about here was related to this comment near the end of the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article, in the second-to-last paragraph:

“It should be carefully noted that the question of the fall of Liberius is one that has been and can be freely debated among Catholics. No one pretends that, if Liberius signed the most Arian formulæ in exile, he did it freely; so that no question of his infallibility is involved.”

My friend raised these questions:

1. Is “being free of external pressure” (such as the death threats that Liberius was apparently receiving) among the requirements for a statement to be ex cathedra?
2. If so, what about in cases where we cannot so easily tell that the pope is under such pressure? What if a pope who appeared to be acting on his own was being threatened or pressured by someone behind the scenes?

I’ve been thinking about how to respond to these questions for a few days now… Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

-Sapphire

 

[MarcoPolo]

Hello,

Recently I was having a discussion with a friend about Pope Liberius and the issue of his “fall.”

I’ve read in the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on him that there is much debate about what exactly happened.

But the issue that came up in our discussion that I wanted to ask about here was related to this comment near the end of the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article, in the second-to-last paragraph:

“It should be carefully noted that the question of the fall of Liberius is one that has been and can be freely debated among Catholics. No one pretends that, if Liberius signed the most Arian formulæ in exile, he did it freely; so that no question of his infallibility is involved.”

My friend raised these questions:

1. Is “being free of external pressure” (such as the death threats that Liberius was apparently receiving) among the requirements for a statement to be ex cathedra?
2. If so, what about in cases where we cannot so easily tell that the pope is under such pressure? What if a pope who appeared to be acting on his own was being threatened or pressured by someone behind the scenes?

I’ve been thinking about how to respond to these questions for a few days now… Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

-Sapphire

First of all, take what you find in the Catholic Encyclopedia with a grain of salt. I have found it to be a little sketchy at times. That particular article is written by John Chapman and as a Catholic, you needn’t feel obligated to defend his exact wording. But secondly, I don’t think you need to be scrupulous on wondering whether or not a Pope is under duress. You can see by the reaction of the Church whether or not his contemporaries understood him to be teaching ex cathedra. Take the Assumption, for instance, there was a long standing Tradition of that teaching long before 1950 and it has persisted. There was no controversy involved at the time. There’s no reasonable indication of any duress. Thirdly, it is unclear according to the same article, what version of Trinitarian forumla Pope Liberius signed. The article speaks of rumors that he signed one version or the other. In order for a statement to be made ex cathedra, the faithful must be able to clearly discern that which has been given a definition for the faithful to hold.

The fact that there were claims that he signed one version or another is yet another indication of the value that the Roman bishop’s support held in the early Church. One guys claimed “he signed my version!” and the other said “no he signed mine!” No?

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Pope teaches infallibly when his teaching meets certain conditions.

It is not clear what happened in the papacy of Pope Liberius, as to whether he signed one document, or another, or whether he signed under duress or not. But there is no indication in any of the versions of this event that he was exercising papal infallibility. The document in question is said to be a condemnation, which could fall under the temporal authority of the Church, not the teaching authority. Although some sources describe it as if it were a teaching document, it is not clear what the contents or wording were. Even a teaching document issued by a Pope is not an exercise in infallibility.

However, I don’t believe the description which claims that Pope Liberius gave in to heresy in order to return to Rome. I believe that God prevents each and every Pope from falling into heresy, in order to protect the Magisterium and the Church.

Can a Pope Ever Be a Heretic?
catholicplanet.com/RCC/heresy-papacy.htm

 

[Sapphire_Dragon]

Thanks for the replies!

I understand and agree about Liberius… I gather from that article that it seems very possible he did not really sign anything at all… And even if he did sign something, there is much controversy over what exactly he signed.

I suppose the main issue I was getting at was the duress part… Not specifically for the Liberius case, but in general. My friend wasn’t concerned about the Pope Liberius story. He was interested in the duress issue we’ve seen pop up from time to time, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia raises in the Liberius case.

Can a seemingly infallibly made statement actually be fallible, because it was made under duress?

I always imagined that the pope would be protected from fallibility even in such cases… But the Catholic Encyclopedia article made me wonder if I was missing something… They seem to depict the presence of duress as the main explanation for why Liberius was not evidence against papal infallibility.

Now I’m thinking perhaps it’s an issue like the “a heretical pope would cease to be pope” theory… I’ve seen that one bounce around, also in the Catholic Encyclopedia. But like Ron pointed out with his link, it doesn’t seem to make any sense with papal infallibility. Definitely complicates things anyway…

Maybe both are cases of some people looking into the depths of something, when the answer isn’t far from the surface.

Thanks again

-Sapphire

 

[MarcoPolo]

There is a bit on page 27ff of the 1881 book Catholic Controversy on this same Pope Liberius/infallibility accusation.

 

[Ignatius]

I’ve read in the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on him that there is much debate about what exactly happened.

1. Is “being free of external pressure” (such as the death threats that Liberius was apparently receiving) among the requirements for a statement to be ex cathedra?
2. If so, what about in cases where we cannot so easily tell that the pope is under such pressure? What if a pope who appeared to be acting on his own was being threatened or pressured by someone behind the scenes?

More pertinent to the issue are the three following points which render the issue nil.

First, the very fact that there is much debate removes it from the possibility of settled isues.
Second, If you read the actual texts you will see that the complaint against Liberius was that he did not condemn the ideas strongly enough and that only after his death. Third, the issue had not been settled in his lifetime, (and is still a matter of some debate) so the issue is moot.

Also, you seem to have some odd ideas about infallible statements. There have been only two or three ex cathedra statements made by popes and this certainly was not one of them. Most of the infallible declarations come from the Ecumenical Councils.

 

[Sapphire_Dragon]

Thanks for posting the link to that book MarcoPolo.

More pertinent to the issue are the three following points which render the issue nil.

First, the very fact that there is much debate removes it from the possibility of settled isues.
Second, If you read the actual texts you will see that the complaint against Liberius was that he did not condemn the ideas strongly enough and that only after his death. Third, the issue had not been settled in his lifetime, (and is still a matter of some debate) so the issue is moot.

I was not questioning whether or not Liberius made an infallible statement.

Also, you seem to have some odd ideas about infallible statements. There have been only two or three ex cathedra statements made by popes and this certainly was not one of them. Most of the infallible declarations come from the Ecumenical Councils.

I did not express any ideas or opinions about ex cathedra statements, how many there have been, etc.

My interest was with the concept of duress that I keep seeing pop up. It is often mentioned with relation to the Liberius case. That’s the only reason I mentioned Liberius.

Both the old Catholic Encyclopedia and the Catholic Controversy book that Marco posted seem to say that a pope being under duress would nullify an otherwise infallible pronouncement.

Catholic Encyclopedia (Pope Liberius article): “It should be carefully noted that the question of the fall of Liberius is one that has been and can be freely debated among Catholics. No one pretends that, if Liberius signed the most Arian formulæ in exile, he did it freely; so that no question of his infallibility is involved.”

Catholic Controversy (page 28, third-to-last sentence in the Liberius article): “But more than this, even if there had been a definition in every other respect complete, it would have lacked one admitted requirement for an ex cathedra pronouncement, I mean freedom.”

Catholic Controversy refers to the pope’s freedom in making an infallible statement as an “admitted requirement.”

My question is: Is it?