Daily Archives: 18/10/2019

In Brief: The Facts on Pope John XXII

Historical Precedent for a “Heretical” Pope?

In Brief: The Facts on Pope John XXII

At a time when countless supposed “traditional Catholics” don’t think twice about accusing an unquestionably true Pope of the past of teaching heresy or at least grave doctrinal error, it behooves us to remind everyone that instead of simply believing whatever you see posted on a blog somewhere, the safer course is to simply look the stuff up. It’s not like these questions never came up before or that no clear answer was ever put forward.

Where to look it up? Look it up where any Catholic priest would have looked it up before Vatican II: in the most recent dogmatic theology manuals approved by the Church. Why most recent? Because the most recent Church-approved manuals will include the most recent doctrinal pronouncements and clarifications from the Magisterium and also take into consideration any of the latest historical research to shed light on questions pertaining to Church history insofar as it relates to doctrinal matters.

In this post, we will take a brief look at the famous case of Pope John XXII (reigned 1316-1334), who is accused of teaching that the souls of those who die in the state of sanctifying grace cannot see God in the fullness of the Beatific Vision until after the Last Judgment.

In the future we are going to post a carefully-researched essay on this with detailed documentation. For now, however, we will have to content ourselves simply with a brief overview of the facts of the case since the issue is continually brought up to discredit the sedevacantist position and “legitimize”, as it were, Francis’ claim to the Papacy.

The following succinct summary of the John XXII controversy comes from the treatise On the Last Things (De Novissimis) of vol. 4 of the extensive Jesuit dogmatic theology compilation Sacrae Theologiae Summa, which was originally published in Latin in 1956 and was recently released in English for the first time.

St. Bernard [Doctor of the Church, 1090-1153] often taught that deceased just persons immediately after death will obtain immense happiness, but not the beatific vision until the resurrection [of their bodies].

John XXII, the Supreme Pontiff, followed him almost to the letter, and the Friars Minor followed him, as is generally reported. He held that immediately after death some reward is given to the just, like seeing already the humanity of Christ in heaven, and that the wicked are punished in hell in some way; but before the final judgment that neither the face-to-face vision of God is granted to the blessed nor the punishment of fire to the damned.

However, he taught this as a private teacher, not as Pontiff, and he held it theoretically or for the sake of debate, thinking that he could be deceived in these matters and permitting others to think differently until the question should be decided authoritatively. Hence he took care to have the matter studied by the Doctors, and frequently summoning debates in his presence on this point, he was prepared to abandon his opinion if it was shown to be against the faith. Indeed, on the day before his death he ordered a declaration of the true doctrine in the presence of all the Cardinals, etc. He said that previously he thought differently about this matter by pondering it and speaking about it. In this way he prepared the way for his successor, Benedict XII, to proclaim a definition of the true teaching [see Denz. 530-531].

(Fr. Joseph F. Sagüés, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa IVB: On the Last Things, trans. by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. [original Latin published by BAC, 1956; English published by Keep the Faith, 2016], n. 30; italics given; underlining added.)

Pope Benedict XII’s ex cathedra definition of the true doctrine concerning the fate of the departed was issued on Jan. 29, 1336:

By this edict which will prevail forever, with apostolic authority we declare: that according to the common arrangement of God, souls of all the saints who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ; also of the holy apostles, the martyrs, the confessors, virgins, and the other faithful who died after the holy baptism of Christ had been received by them, in whom nothing was to be purged, when they departed, nor will there be when they shall depart also in the future; or if then there was or there will be anything to be purged in these when after their death they have been purged; and the souls of children departing before the use of free will, reborn and baptized in that same baptism of Christ, when all have been baptized, immediately after their death and that aforesaid purgation in those who were in need of a purgation of this kind, even before the resumption of their bodies and the general judgment after the ascension of our Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, into heaven, have been, are, and will be in heaven, in the kingdom of heaven and in celestial paradise with Christ, united in the company of the holy angels, and after the passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ have seen and see the divine essence by intuitive vision, and even face to face, with no mediating creature, serving in the capacity of an object seen, but divine essence immediately revealing itself plainly, clearly, and openly, to them, and seeing thus they enjoy the same divine essence, and also that from such vision and enjoyment their souls, which now have departed, are truly blessed and they have eternal life and rest; and also [the souls] of those who afterwards will depart, will see that same divine essence, and will enjoy it before the general judgment; and that such vision of the divine essence and its enjoyment makes void the acts of faith and hope in them, inasmuch as faith and hope are proper theological virtues; and that after there has begun or will be such intuitive and face-to-face vision and enjoyment in these, the same vision and enjoyment without any interruption [intermission] or departure of the aforesaid vision and enjoyment exist continuously and will continue even up to the last judgment and from then even unto eternity.

Moreover, we declare that according to the common arrangement of God, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin immediately after their death descend to hell where they are tortured by infernal punishments, and that nevertheless on the day of judgment all men with their bodies will make themselves ready to render an account of their own deeds before the tribunal of Christ, “so that everyone may receive the proper things of the body according as he has done whether it be good or evil” [ 2 Cor. 5:10].

(Pope Benedict XII, Apostolic Constitution Benedictus DeusDenz. 530-531)

Thus we can see that the case of Pope John XXII is in no way comparable to that of “Pope” Francis:

Pope John spoke (1) as a private teacher (2) on a matter not yet settled (3) in order to ascertain the truth of the matter so it could be defined, (4) meanwhile permitting others to differ from him. In other words, the Pope did not exercise his Magisterium; he did not commit heresy; and although his view was erroneous, it was permissible for him to hold at the time. The Church historian Fr. Reuben Parsons explicitly states that in holding his theory, Pope John was “in the full exercise of his right” (Studies in Church History, vol. 2, 2nd ed. [Fr. Pustet & Co., 1896], p. 500).

Contrast this with the apostasy of “Pope” Francis, who (1) issues magisterial documents (such as Evangelii Gaudium and Amoris Laetitia) and has explicitly stated that he intends to speak magisterially even in interviews; (2) therefore as (putative) Pope; (3) on matters long settled and defined, even directly revealed by God (cf. Ex 20:14); (4) for the sake of changing established church teaching and practice.

On Dec. 3, 1334 — one day before he was to die — Pope John XXII issued a formal retraction of any errors he may have held, in the bull Ne Super His, which was published by his successor, Pope Benedict XII:

In order that those things often said — both by Us and by certain others in Our presence — on the subject of the purified souls separated from the body (whether before the resurrection of the bodies they can see the divine essence with that vision which the apostle calls face to face) — by citing Sacred Scripture and the original sayings of the saints or other modes of reasoning — should not impress the ears of the faithful otherwise than as was said or understood by Us or as is being said and understood [by Us], so We now earnestly declare as follows, in the context of the present [writings] Our opinion that We, together with the holy Catholic Church, have and have had regarding this matter.

We therefore confess and believe that the purified souls separated from the body are gathered together in heaven, in paradise and the kingdom of the heaven [sic], with Christ in the company of the angels, and that they, according to the common precept, clearly see God and the divine essence face to face, insofar as the state and the condition of the separated soul allows.

But if, in any way, other things may have been said, or [said] in another manner, by Us on this subject, We have said them in the disposition of the Catholic faith, and We affirm to have said them thus in discoursing and discussing, and We wish to have said [them] thus. Furthermore, if We, in what pertains to the Catholic faith, Sacred Scripture, or good morals, have said other things in preaching, discoursing, formulating a doctrine, teaching, or in any other way, these, insofar as they are in conformity with the Catholic faith, the Church’s way of thinking, Sacred Scripture, and good morals, We approve; other things, however, We wish to consider as though they were not said, and We do not in any way approve them; rather, insofar as these might not have been in accord with what We have mentioned — the Catholic faith, the Church’s way of thinking, Sacred Scripture, or good morals or any of these — We reject them; and likewise We submit to the judgment of the Church and Our successors all that We have said or written on any subjects wherever and in whatever place and in whatever situation We have or may have had up until now.

(Pope John XXII, Bull Ne Super HisDenzinger-Hünermann 990-991; available online in Latin here.)

Let no one, then, appeal to the case of Pope John XXII as historical precedent permitting refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff. The traditional Catholic teaching on the Papacy remains as true today as it was when enunciated by Pope Pius IX in 1853: “Be vigilant in act and word, so that the faithful may grow in love for this Holy See, venerate it, and accept it with complete obedience; they should execute whatever the See itself teaches, determines, and decrees” (Encyclical Inter Multiplices, n. 7).

Those “traditional Catholics” of our day who think they can find precedent in the Church’s past for resisting the Magisterium of a “heretical” Pope, forget that all these issues were debated extensively at the time of the First Vatican Council (1869-70) as the Pope and the bishops were preparing a dogmatic constitution on the primacy of the Pope and the extent of the infallibility of his Magisterium. The following anecdote was related by Abp. John Purcell of Cincinnati, who had attended the council:

The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

(Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; underlining added.)

Further information on the supposed “heretical” Popes of the past can be found in the following posts:

Historically, those accusing Popes of magisterial error or heresy have typically been the enemies of the Church and of the Papacy (specifically Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Gallicans, and Modernists), whereas those who have defended the Popes from such charges have enjoyed a great reputation for orthodoxy. Of the latter group we need but name a few: Pope Pius IX, St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal Joseph Hergenröther, Cardinal Louis-Nazaire Bégin, Dom Prosper Gueranger, and many others. Bellarmine even wrote a little compendium answering charges against a number of very specific Popes:

Those who deride the defenders of the integrity of the papal Magisterium as “Ultramontanists” apparently do not realize how foolish their charge is, because Ultramontanism is Catholicism: “For Catholics it would be superfluous to ask whether Ultramontanism and Catholicism are the same thing: assuredly, those who combat Ultramontanism are in fact combating Catholicism, even when they disclaim the desire to oppose it” (Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Ultramontanism”).

The only reason why accusing Popes of the past of heresy or other magisterial aberrations is very popular these days among those who mean to be traditional Catholics, is, of course, the simple fact that Francis’ manifest apostasy combined with an irrational but dogmatic refusal of Sedevacantism leaves such people no other choice but to seek some kind of similar case in history to which they can point and say, “See, this Pope was just as heretical as Francis is, and the faithful resisted him, and no one said he wasn’t the Pope.” Such dishonorable efforts, however, are guaranteed to fail because they aim at finding in Church history a theological absurdity, an utter impossibility.

As we have pointed out many times on this web site before, insisting that Jorge Bergoglio is a valid Roman Pontiff does incalculable damage to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Papacy:

It is tragic to see how many would sooner jettison the true Catholic teaching on the Papacy than recognize that Jorge Bergoglio isn’t a valid occupant of the office.

Alas, people have ironically preferred having a Pope to the very meaning of the Papacy itself. For them, it is more important to have the papal office occupied than to preserve the correct understanding of what the papal office is. And so they have traded the Papacy for a Pope, as it were.

The just punishment of this Faustian bargain is that they now have neither: They have no true Pope, and they no longer have the correct understanding of the Papacy either.

See, then, how dire the consequences are to accepting Francis as a true Pope.

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     9

The Truth about Pope Liberius and St. Athanasius – John Daly destroys Michael Davies

Setting the Historical Record straight…

The Truth about Pope Liberius and the “Excommunication” of St. Athanasius 

Now that Francis has successfully detonated his nuclear bomb called Amoris Laetitia — the “Apostolic Exhortation” effectively granting free rein to people in permanent adultery and other “irregular unions” to receive the Novus Ordo sacraments — the anti-sedevacantist “resistance traditionalists” are scrambling to justify their refusal to countenance the possibility that perhaps, just perhaps, a man whom anyone can see is truly the Vicar of Satan cannot also be the Vicar of Jesus Christ at the same time (cf. 2 Cor 6:15).

One of the most predictable internet sites in this regard is the famous indult blog Rorate Caeli, which quickly recycled the old litany of “heretical Popes” of the past to justify the current situation:

Why it is intrinsically impossible to be more Catholic than the Pope, is something we explained to The Remnant’s chief rhetorician Christopher Ferrara a few months ago, and it bears repeating:

Last year we began a blog post series entitled The “Heretical” Popes, but, due to time constraints, we have only been able to publish a single installment so far. Nevertheless, it is well worth a read, as is the response we gave to the blogger Mundabor on one of his fantasies about the papacy:

As the chaotic fallout from Amoris Laetitia continues — we’ve been chronicling it here —, we can expect that lots of people who believe themselves to be traditional Catholics but accept, however grudgingly, Jorge Bergoglio as the Pope of the Catholic Church, will once again invoke the argument that Francis must still be considered a valid Pope because we’ve allegedly had similar cases in the past where Popes succumbed to heresy and still remained Pope. One of the celebrated examples then brought forward on such occasions is typically the case of Pope Liberius, who “fell into Arianism” and “excommunicated St. Athanasius”, who was then the “only bishop who remained faithful” in a time when almost the entire Catholic world had defected into Arianism.

This perception of the “bad Pope Liberius” and the “excommunicated” St. Athanasius is extremely widespread in “traditionalist” circles, due in large part to the tireless efforts of the celebrated Lefebvrist apologist Michael Davies (d. 2004), who repeated these claims ad nauseam, as they provided a convenient basis from which to argue in favor of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and against John Paul II, while still accepting the latter as a valid Pope. Not surprisingly, in their new book True or False Pope?, the new SSPX apologists John Salza and Robert Siscoe also restate the old accusations against Pope Liberius.

There is just one problem with them: They aren’t true.

In his exhaustive critique of Davies entitled Michael Davies – An Evaluation (1st ed., 1989; 2nd ed., 2015), sedevacantist author John Daly dedicates an entire chapter of over 50 pages to demonstrating — not justclaiming — that there is no genuine historical evidence available that could establish with certitude that Pope Liberius either did or probably did subscribe to Arianism or Semi-Arianism, nor is there any genuine evidence that the Pope ever excommunicated St. Athanasius. Rather, the historical evidence is to the contrary, evidence accepted and mentioned by serious Catholic historians and theologians before Vatican II, glossed over by Davies.

Mr. Daly has kindly given permission to Novus Ordo Watch to reprint the chapter on Pope Liberius and the Arian crisis from his book against Davies. In fact, we have previously offered, likewise with the author’s permission, Daly’s entire book as a free PDF download (here), and it is also available in paperback:


Michael Davies – An Evaluation (2nd ed.)
by John S. Daly (2015)

An electronic version of this book is available in PDF format
FOR FREE by clicking here

Here, then, are a few select paragraphs of Daly’s chapter on Pope Liberius. The entire chapter can be read in full at the link given at the end of the excerpt:

[…]

It must now be shown that Davies’s representation of history, unfortunately both for the arguments he seeks to base on it and for the cause of truth in itself, is very far from reality. First, I shall list a few very clear facts which are strongly suggestive – to say no more – that the story of a fall from orthodoxy on the part of Pope Liberius is no more than a myth. This done, it will be possible to examine in more detail the great mass of evidence which, taken collectively, raises this conclusion from probability to certainty.

The main facts are these:

1. Pope Liberius was in reality a staunch opponent, not only of the Arians, but also of the Semi-Arians.

2. He was sent into exile by the Semi-Arian Emperor Constantius precisely because of the failure of the attempts of that emperor and his toady bishops to influence him to excommunicate St. Athanasius and accept as orthodox a compromised Semi-Arian statement of Catholic doctrine concerning Our Lord’s Divinity. [4]

3. Constantius appointed Felix to replace the absent Liberius in the See of Rome, but Felix was not at that time accepted as pope by the Romans.

4. Felix himself did not in fact subscribe to Arianism, but he did acknowledge ecclesiastical communion with arianisers, for which reason, the fifth century historian-bishop Theodoret informs us, “none of the citizens of Rome entered into the church while he was inside.” (History of the Latin Church, Bk. II, c. 17)

5. The people of Rome remained loyal to Liberius and protested to the emperor at his detention.

6. Eventually their peaceable protests gave way to rioting, and as a result Liberius was permitted by Constantius to return to Rome.

7. On his return he was received as a victor there by the populace.

8. His reign in Rome then continued for a few years more, during which time he remained entirely orthodox, refused to compromise in the slightest degree on the orthodox doctrine of the Council of Nicæa, and was in full communion and friendship with St. Athanasius.

9. Some extant historical texts apparently of that period assert that the immediate reason for his return to Rome was that he had subscribed to a Semi-Arian formula. But many others favour the contrary view.

10. The weight of subsequent scholarship is strongly in favour of Liberius’s orthodoxy, and orthodox Catholic scholars in particular – and it is they who have studied the subject in greatest depth and are most reliable – are overwhelmingly of the view that Liberius never fell, remained orthodox throughout his exile, and always remained in full communion with St. Athanasius.

[…]

Another fact which Davies does not mention, even if only to try to explain it away, is that Pope Liberius is honoured as a saint in the ancient Latin Martyrology. Although Davies says repeatedly that Athanasius was canonized and Liberius was not, this is in fact quite false. Neither was formally canonized, as the formal procedure of canonization did not exist at the period that the Church began to revere them (which was immediately after their deaths); but both benefited from the Church’s official recognition as saints in the form which did then exist, by their inclusion in the martyrologies of West and East.

In fact evidence in further support of the testimonies already given could be multiplied almost indefinitely, for instance from the historians Cassiodorus (490-583) and Theophanes (IXth century). But after such conclusive testimonies to Pope Liberius’s sanctity and unfailing orthodoxy, what can be the need?

Instead, let us move on to an examination of such early sources as can be adduced in favour of the allegation of his having subscribed to heresy. It need hardly be said that, even if these sources might appear to be conclusive, the testimony of the authors just cited would oblige us to pause long for thought and to make us in the highest degree reluctant to accept the conclusion they tend towards. But in fact no such dilemma would occur to anyone who looks at the evidence attentively, for the miserable clutch of references from which the opponents of Liberius and enemies of the Holy See attempt to construct an adamantine case against Liberius are no sooner scrutinized than they fall away as probably inauthentic and certainly erroneous – as will now be shown.

[…]

The Division of Scholarly Opinion

It would not be true to say that Davies never at all acknowledges that there is scholarly dissension on the question of the fall of Liberius and his excommunication of St. Athanasius; but such acknowledgements are very rare, and even when they are made they are formulated in terms which suggest that the dissenters are a small minority of overzealous fanatics whose historical learning is unworthy of serious consideration. Here, for instance, is what he writes in both Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Vol. I, p. 371 and The True Voice of Tradition, p. 9:

Some Catholic apologists have attempted to prove that Liberius neither confirmed the excommunication of Athanasius nor subscribed to one of the formulæ of Sirmium. But Cardinal Newman has no doubt that the fall of Liberius is an historical fact.
In other words, such is the measure of Davies’s contempt for these “Catholic apologists”, that he deems them worthy only of anonymous obscurity, and considers the weight of Cardinal Newman’s opinion alone sufficient to justify his readers in dismissing them as unworthy of further attention.

And what is the truth on this matter? It can easily be seen simply by comparing a list of those serious scholars who hold the theory that Liberius capitulated to Constantius with a list of those who defend his orthodoxy.

Anti-Liberian Writers

Let us begin with those who may broadly be regarded as on Davies’s side. They comprise Moeller, who was a Gallican; Barmby, who was a Protestant; Langen, who was an Old Catholic; Tillemont, whom Fr. W.H. Anderdon S.J. selects in his Britain’s Early Faith (p. 39) as the archetypal sceptic; Döllinger, the famous scholar who left the Church at the time of the declaration of Papal Infallibility in 1870 and became an Old Catholic; Cardinal Newman, in his Arians of the Fourth Century, written in 1833, twelve years before his conversion in a work in which he accuses the papacy of having apostatized altogether at the Council of Trent [21]; Renouf; Schiktanz; Fr. Alban Butler [22]; the infidel Gibbon, whose Decline and Fall is on the Index and who seems to have decided whether or not to accept allegations hostile to the papacy purely on the basis of whether they would be useful for bringing the Catholic Church into disrepute. I cannot bring myself to add the name of St. Robert Bellarmine to this list, for he was at best no more than a highly tentative anti-Liberian and appears to express contradictory views on the subject in two different places (De Romano Pontifice lib. IV, cap. 9 and lib. II, cap. 30, para. 2). Moreover he was writing at the dawn of critical historiography, before any question had been raised as to the authenticity of some of the patristic manuscripts he was using, and he emphasizes that any brief defection from his celebrated orthodoxy on the part of Liberius is a matter of doubt.

On the other hand I freely offer Michael Davies the support of E. Amman in the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique. Indeed special mention is called for in his case, because the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique is a justly famous work and generally reliable. What must never be forgotten, however, is that all encyclopædic works inevitably suffer from the defect that some of their contributors tend to be less reliable than others, for equality in this field, as in any other field, is simply not a characteristic of the human race – a fact which obstinately continues to apply no matter what rarefied levels of scholarship are reached, and a fact which no editor can overcome because no editor is competent to verify all his contributions. As regards Amann’s article as an example of this phenomenon, it is sufficient to note that he quotes in inverted commas – yes, quotes – what purport to be the passages from the writings of St. Athanasius in which the “capitulation” of Pope Liberius has been interpolated, and that in each case the true meaning is both grossly distorted and further corrupted with inventions of his own. In other words, not content with passing off, in defiance of the overwhelming evidence we have seen earlier, the contemporary pseudo-Athanasius as Athanasius, he falsifies even that corruption. A forgery is not sufficient for his purposes; he must embellish it with further forgeries of his own. (See Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Vol. IX, column 638.)

Anyhow the foregoing writers are the most renowned historians of the anti-Liberian school.

Exceptions

There are also writers who hold the more moderate position, similar to that maintained by Sozomen among the ancients, that Liberius subscribed to a formula deliberately couched in ambiguous terminology, which, although it was in fact open to a heterodox interpretation, led him genuinely to believe that the formula was a statement of the Catholic Faith. These writers include Baronius, [23] von Hefele, who was a liberal, Funk, and Duchesne, a notorious Modernist, some of whose writings are on the Index of Forbidden Books.

Pro-Liberian Writers

The very least that can be said of the list of writers who have defended the orthodoxy of Liberius is that it is no less impressive than what we have seen so far. It comprises the Mediæval Byzantine historian Georgio Cedrenos (c. 1100), faithful relayer of the traditions of Eastern Christendom; Stilting; Zaccaria; Palma; Dom Guéranger (The Liturgical Year: Feast of St Eusebius); Cardinal Hergenröther, the famous vindicator of Catholic orthodoxy against the attacks of Döllinger at the time of the 1870 Vatican Council; Jungmann, whose work on the subject covers eighty pages of close argument and is in this writer’s opinion entirely conclusive alone; [24] Grisar; Freis; Flavio; Corgne; Rohrbacher, whose Histoire Universelle de l’Église Catholique has been justly hailed as “sublime” (Palme), “monumental” (Catholic Encyclopædia), and the finest history of the Church written since the sixteenth century and should be snapped up by anyone with the ability to read French [25] who comes across it; Dom John Chapman in his article in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopædia; Alzog in his Universal Catholic History, Vol. I, p. 542; Darras in his General History of the Catholic Church, p. 456 et seq.; Reinerding; Schneeman; Wouters; Barthélémy in his Erreurs et Mensonges Historiques which earned a papal accolade; Harrold in The American Catholic Quarterly Review, 1883; Fr. Luke Rivington in The Primitive Church and the See of Peter; Dumont; the renowned Scriptural exegete Menochius; the very learned historian and theologian Ballerini; Galland; the Roman Breviary itself (December 16th); and the famous Gallican bishop Bossuet, who originally argued in favour of the capitulation of Liberius but, according to his secretary, D. Ledieu, wished to have what he had written on this subject deleted from his works. Nor ought we to overlook the renowned Enchiridion Symbolorum first edited by Fr. Heinrich Denzinger and later appearing in more complete editions with various learned editors, for under No 93 it lists the letter of St. Anastasius vindicating Pope Liberius (referred to earlier) under the heading “De orthodoxia Liberii Papæ” – “Concerning the orthodoxy of Pope Liberius”.

According to What Criteria Does Davies Select His Sources?

Very revealing and instructive is the bibliography to Davies’s booklet on Liberius and Athanasius, listing the six works which Davies has drawn on for the material used in the pamphlet. To offer a brief assessment of these works will not take long.

Two are “Catholic dictionaries”, one of them published as late as the 1970s and therefore obviously unreliable. One is a small book called A Handbook of Heresies by M.L. Cozens, which, though sound, devotes only seven pages to the entire topic of Arianism and Semi-Arianism and nowhere even mentions Liberius. Another, the only full-length book, is The Arians of the Fourth Century by Davies’s hero, Cardinal Newman. And the two remaining works are the 1913 Catholic Encyclopædia and the 1967 New Catholic Encyclopædia.

Bearing in mind how frequently and emphatically Davies has put forward his opinion on what is recognized by everyone else to be a very controversial subject, this bibliography is of course ludicrously short. But there is another feature of it which is of even greater interest. This, to which reference has already been made in this Evaluation, is that, whereas five of the works given in the bibliography are also cited in the text of the booklet – most of them more than once – the sixth, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopædia, does not feature in the text at all. It is in fact difficult to see why the 1913 Catholic Encyclopædia rates a mention in the bibliography, unless it is simply that Davies, who uses it as a reference work for many other purposes, was simply embarrassed to cite only the 1967 New Catholic Encyclopædia and thus admit openly that he was ignoring everything in the more traditional and obviously more reliable work in favour of this inferior post-Vatican II substitute which itself stands under far heavier accusation of compromise with heresy than Pope Liberius ever did! As for why he did the opposite of what any true Catholic would do who wanted to consult an encyclopædia, and turned single-mindedly to the post-Vatican II version published under the umbrella of the Conciliar Church – that admits no difficulty whatever of explanation. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopædia, which Davies frequently quotes in his works on subjects other than Pope Liberius, contains an excellent and cogent article arguing that the various charges made against Liberius are entirely spurious, and for Davies this is sufficient to make it, in Orwellian terms, an un-encyclopædia.

Needless to say, the dreadful New Catholic Encyclopædia, like all such works which have emanated from the Conciliar Church in order to “update” and outdate their pre-Conciliar counterparts, seizes every opportunity that presents itself to undermine the Church and diminish the esteem which Catholics should have for the Holy See, by invariably siding with the enemies of the Vicar of Christ in the allegations which they bring against him. Davies stands revealed as a man who is prepared to turn to such a source as this to bolster up his prejudices while dismissing traditional and trustworthy authorities who contradict the thesis which he finds it convenient to champion.

[…]

To read the entire chapter refuting Michael Davies, go here:

Over the last few decades, Michael Davies enjoyed among traditionalists a great, although unfounded, reputation for being a reliable scholar in historical and theological matters. Yet in this exhaustive critique of Davies, Daly proves that Davies was little more than a third-class propagandist for the pseudo-traditionalist positions of the SSPX. While giving credit where credit is due, Daly systematically and rigorously dismantles Davies’ main arguments, both those for the false recognize-and-resist traditionalism and those against sedevacantism.

It is highly deplorable that the great majority of English-speaking people today who are meaning to be good traditional Catholics, have unwittingly obtained their historical and theological information, ultimately, from Michael Davies.

It is time to stop reading Davies and to start reading real Catholic history!

The Case of Pope Honorius I

Setting the record straight…

The Case of Pope Honorius I

These days, recognize-and-resist adherents are in an extremely difficult spot: They can no longer deny the horrendous public apostasy perpetrated by Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) on a near-daily basis, yet they absolutely refuse to consider even as a possibility the idea that the greatest apostate the world has ever known is not at the same time the Vicar of Christ and head of the infallible and indefectible Roman Catholic Church.

Time and again, therefore, they are eager to find historical precedent for their position, and few things seem to please them more than to find, ostensibly, a “heretical Pope” in Church history they can point to in support of their stance. Like the Gallicans of the 19th century, today’s recognize-and-resisters think they have found such a case in the seventh-century Pope Honorius I, whom several ecumenical councils (Constantinople IIINicea II, and Constantinople IV) anathematized as a “heretic” for appearing to endorse the heresy of Monothelitism in a letter to Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople.

But what are the historical facts, and how can we be sure of them?

The issue of Pope Honorius was never more controversial than on the eve of and during the First Vatican Council, which was held from 1869-70 and defined as a dogma, among other things, the infallibility of the Pope when speaking ex cathedra. It was during this time that all the known facts on Pope Honorius were scrutinized and hotly debated. (Even the question of what would happen if a Pope became a public heretic was raised — and answered.) Arguments from all sides were exchanged by means of books, pamphlets, articles, and speeches. For example, in 1868 the Jesuit Fr. Paul Bottalla published the book Pope Honorius before the Tribunal of Reason and History (available for free electronically here), which he wrote in response to Peter Le Page Renouf’s pamphlet, The Condemnation of Pope Honorius.

Some maintained that Pope Honorius was indeed a Monothelite heretic, and that history proved it; others claimed that the historical documents on which this accusation rested had been interpolated or were outright forgeries. Others still argued that although the documents had to be admitted as authentic, they did not in fact prove Honorius to have been a heretic.

In order to bring this controversy, which has once again flared up in our day, to a decisive end, we have undertaken to translate from the original French the research presented on this issue by Fr. Louis-Nazaire Bégin (1840-1925) in his book La Primauté et l’Infaillibilité des Souverains Pontifes (“The Primacy and Infallibility of the Sovereign Pontiffs”), published in 1873. The Canadian Fr. Begin held a doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and was later appointed Archbishop of Quebec by Pope Leo XIII (1898) and created cardinal by Pope St. Pius X (1914). At the time of the Vatican Council, Fr. Begin was teaching dogmatic theology and Church history at a seminary in Quebec.

Writing in 1873, Fr. Begin had the benefit of being able to draw from all the research done in preparation for the council, from the acts of the council, and from its teachings. His book, which is based on a series of university lessons he gave, bears the required imprimatur of Cardinal Taschereau, then the Archbishop of Quebec. It is clear, therefore, that it will be a most reliable source — both in terms of assessing the facts of history and of ensuring doctrinal orthodoxy — for unraveling the confusing case of Pope Honorius according to the mind of the Church.

Fr. Begin’s book does not solely deal with the Pope Honorius controversy. As the title indicates, it is a general vindication of papal primacy and infallibility throughout Church history. It has been published only in French and can be read online for free here and purchased in paperback here. An English translation of the entire book is not available; however, we have translated the lecture dealing with the Honorius question and are making it available for you in full at the following link:

In this text, Fr. Begin proposes to answer “all the objections levied against the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius”, and he does not fail to deliver. “It is good for all to be acquainted with this controversy”, the author instructs his readers, “which has upset souls so much and which the enemies of the Church have abused so often against the papacy and Catholicism in general.”

The Canadian priest outlines the task before him as follows:

I shall begin by showing that the documents in question, that is to say the letter of Sergius to Honorius, the two letters of Honorius to Sergius, and the acts of the Sixth Council, are authentic; then I shall show that Honorius, nevertheless, did not fall into heresy, and that the Sixth [Ecumenical] Council [i.e. the Third Council of Constantinople] did not condemn him as a formal heretic, but only as guilty of negligence.

All of this Fr. Begin accomplishes with the necessary seriousness, erudition, sensibility, love of truth, and dedication to Holy Mother Church such an important subject demands.

The following select quotes from Fr. Begin’s investigation of the Pope Honorius case touch upon some key points of the controversy and will serve as additional incentives to read the entire text:

We come now to a very serious question, one which touches the very heart of our subject. This is the question: Did Pope Honorius fall into the heresy of Monotheletism? I answer, “No!” Here I find myself to have for adversaries a throng of writers hostile to the Catholic Church. On the other hand, I am supported by men who are the most eminent for their knowledge and erudition.

In his first letter [to Sergius, Pope Honorius] repeats several times that “the Scriptures demonstrate clearly that Jesus Christ is the same Who operates in things divine and in things human;” that “Jesus Christ operates in the two natures, divinely and humanly.” Nothing could be clearer or more obvious! The heresy is right away knocked down. It is thus evident that Honorius confesses in Jesus Christ not only two natures, but also two wills and two operations. Thus, this Pontiff professes in his letters the Catholic truth; he rejects only the new words being used to express it, and this for reasons of prudence, in order not to appear to favor Nestorianism or Eutychianism, and also because Sergius astutely portrayed these new expressions as a cause of troubles in the Church and an obstacle to the return of Monosphysites to orthodoxy.

John, secretary to Honorius, who wrote the letter to Sergius and who must have known better than any other the thoughts of the Pontiff, said on this matter: “When we spoke of a single will in the Lord, we did not have in view His double nature, divine and human, but His humanity only…. We meant that Jesus Christ did not have two contrary wills, that is to say one of the flesh and one of the spirit, as we ourselves have on account of sin, but that, with regard to His humanity, He had but one natural will.”

Pope John IV gave to Honorius’s words absolutely the same sense. It is therefore quite evident that the doctrine of Honorius in his letters to Sergius is irreproachable from the point of view of sound theology, because in addition to the divine will, which no one has denied, he confesses the human will in all its perfection.

…[Honorius’] unique goal, and certainly a very praiseworthy one, was to maintain peace in the Church by preventing the introduction of new words and removing all obstacles to the return of heretics to the true doctrine.

Thus, amid all the accusations brought against Honorius by the Fathers of the Sixth Council, none of them amounted to formal heresy; all of them were limited to incriminating this pope for having followed the advice of Sergius, who prescribed silence on the doctrine of the two operations in Jesus Christ, by which the error was propagated due to the audacious activity of the Monothelites and the blind obedience of Catholics, by which the heresy was not rejected and condemned in principle with the courage and energy which ought to be found in the supreme pastor; but in none of this do you see the council accuse Honorius of having professed a doctrine contrary to that of the Church. His negligence–this was his entire crime, this is why he was reproached, and this is what brought him condemnation.

…I do not deny the condemnation; on the contrary, I admit it according to what I said moments ago; but I distinguish the word heretic, which is quite imprecise and was still more so at the time of the councils in question. It was designated not only to those who professed the heresy knowingly and obstinately, but also to those who benefited it in any manner whatsoever, be it by their silence and negligence when their responsibilities obliged them to take action, be it by defending persons or the writings of heretics, be it even due to their communication with these heretics, or that they involuntarily admitted their doctrines.

…From this, I conclude that Honorius could have been condemned as a heretic by these three councils, and that he in fact was, not for having taught error, but solely for not having exerted the necessary vigor in his duties as Head of the Church, for not having vigorously used his authority to repress heresy, for having prescribed silence about the manner of expressing a truth, and having thus contributed to the diffusion of error.

This is the same conclusion which was reached by almost everyone who dealt with this question during the Vatican Council. Dom Guéranger, Abbot of the Solesmes Benedictines, said on the matter, “The real Sixth Council, the one to which the Roman Pontiff gave the necessary and canonical form, the one which requires the respect of the faithful, condemned Honorius only as an unfaithful guardian of the deposit of the faith, but not as having himself been an adherent of heresy. Justice and truth forbid us from going beyond that.”

These select few quotes are by no means meant to replace an attentive and thorough reading of the entire text, which we have gone through the trouble of procuring for you in English translation. Here, again, is the link to the full chapter:

You will not regret spending some time reading the scholarly presentation by this eminent seminary professor and later cardinal-archbishop.

Understanding the Pope Honorius controversy correctly is extremely important in our day, not only for the sake of maintaining the purity of Catholic doctrine and clarifying the historical facts, but also and especially so that it cannot be misused by others to promote a public apostate as the Vicar of Christ and head of the Catholic Church. The next time someone tries to tell you that Pope Honorius was a heretic, or that several ecumenical councils have condemned Pope Honorius as one, you will now have the ammunition you need to set the historical record straight.

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     25

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

AMOR DE LA VERDAD

IGLESIA CATÓLICA igual en 2000 años hasta la muerte de Pío XII

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine

SCATURREX

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TraditionalMass.org Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Homunizam

homoseksualizacija društva - politička korektnost - totalitarizam - za roditelje: prevencija homoseksualnosti - svjedočanstva izlaska iz homoseksualnosti

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

AMOR DE LA VERDAD

IGLESIA CATÓLICA igual en 2000 años hasta la muerte de Pío XII

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine

SCATURREX

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TraditionalMass.org Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Homunizam

homoseksualizacija društva - politička korektnost - totalitarizam - za roditelje: prevencija homoseksualnosti - svjedočanstva izlaska iz homoseksualnosti

%d blogeri kao ovaj: