The concepts of papal infallibility and papal supremacy, rooted in the primacy of Peter promised by Christ in Matthew 16 and elsewhere in the Gospels, have extensive and important historical roots. Currently, in an effort to reunify the Eastern Churches and the Western Church, Orthodox and Catholic theologians and clerics have begun talks concerning the role of the Bishop of Rome in the early Church. This is important for the reasons I mentioned here. The Orthodox hope to show that the Catholic perception of the Pope is not part of Tradition, while the Catholics hope to show that while the modern practice of papal supremacy is certainly not what it was in the Early Church, the roots for modern supremacy are clearly laid out, and thus the Catholic perception of supremacy is part of Tradition.
Protestants like to look at history as well, but their vision is a bit different. While Orthodox theologians and historians recognize the Petrine Supremacy (but differ on what that means), Protestant historians reject that notion. Instead, they look to the Early Church as evidence against popishness and Romish beliefs. Two examples that anti-Catholics like to trumpet before the uneducated are Pope Liberius and Pope Honorius, whose pontificates happened to fall during times of tremendous ecclesial upheaval.
Pope Liberius was elected to the See of Rome in the midst of the Arian heresy. Arius denied that Christ was Divine, or consubstantial with the Father. In political terms, this theology actually supported an all-powerful emperor, while a Divine Christ gives power to the Church (because the Church is Divinely Inspired, where the emperor is not). Arianism grew in strength, supported by the Emperor in the East, until over 80% of bishops in the world were Arian. The great defender of orthodoxy, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, was even banished from his see by the Arians. The Arian emperor sought to make the entire empire Arian by force. Numerous times, he sought to influence the Bishop of Rome, Liberius. In the end, Liberius made some concessions to the Arian emperor (under pain of death), to which he later recanted. Protestants use this example to show that the Church adopted the idea of papal infallibility (that when the Pope speaks as the successor of Peter--and thus the head of all Christians--on a specific matter of faith and morals, than he can never speak error), it was not an initial doctrine.
On the surface, the bare minimum facts support the Protestant view: a pope, who previously defended orthodox belief, jumped ship when his life was in danger, and embraced heresy. How can you say that his definitions were infallible (and therefore unchanging) when he changed his position? Looking at the scenario from this perspective, the Catholic doctrine of infallibility seems to be undercut. However, why don't we dig deeper, and look at the whole picture?
Athanasius, the staunch defender of Christ's Divinity and the archenemy of Arius, wrote about Liberius' affair in his Historia Arianorum (History of the Arians), Part V. Firstly, it must be known that with imperial support, Arians came to power in the East, so that in a short time, orthodox bishops were in the minority. Athanasius was a vocal opponent to the heretics. In punishment for his vociferous opposition, he was deposed from his see. What did he do in response? He appealed to the pope, who reinstated him. This upset the Arians immensely. How did they respond? They attempted to woo the pope to their side: according to Athanasius, their modus operandi was that if the pope falls, all of Christendom will fall: "These impious men reasoned thus with themselves: 'If we can persuade Liberius, we shall soon prevail over all.'" (Historia Arianorum, V, 35). Athanasius recounts that Liberius, citing not only his authority as the successor of Peter, but likewise Tradition (handed down by the Apostle Peter), and the Council of Nicaea which defined the Faith and anathematized Arianism, refused the exhortation of the Emperor (HA, PtV, 36).
The Emperor was livid, and contrived his governors, Counts, and other officials to somehow lure Liberius away from the See of Rome and capture him. In Paragraph 38 of Pt V of the Historia, Athanasius recounts how teh letters of the emperor to the politicians in Rome created immense turmoil for the Eternal City. The emperor, according to Athanasius, promised many things to the politicians in Rome, and such was their response, that it was hard for orthodox people to visit the Holy Father in support. The emperor succeed eventually in torturing the Pope's emissaries to the court, and banishing the Holy Father. According to Athanasius, after two years of banishment and the threat of death, Liberius consented to sign a document that condemned Athanasius (and in a circular way, approve Arianism). This is where Protestant apologists go nuts. "See, see! He gave in, he changed his tune. He taught error! There is no infallibility!!"
However, Athanasius, who is the brunt of the document Liberius signed, sees it differently: "Yet even this only shows their violent conduct, and the hatred of Liberius against the heresy, and his support of Athanasius, so long as he was suffered to exercise a free choice. For that which men are forced by torture to do contrary to their first judgment, ought not to be considered the willing deed of those who are in fear, but rather of their tormentors." Where modern day Protestants see a lapse of faith, a changing of teaching, or the teaching of error, contemporaries (including one who sought the Bishop of Rome's help over his peers) see a man who was tortured into submission, and see not an admission of error, or a changing of teaching, but the will of his torturers being forced on him, and further evidence of Liberius' hatred of the heresy.
In the end, those who point to Liberius as evidence against papal infallibility or papal supremacy miss the mark completely. In the beginning, the Emperor sought to buy off the Pope, hoping that with the Successor of Peter under his influence, the rest of the bishops, including Athanasius, would fall. Clearly, then, even the emperor and his minions understood the authority of the Roman Pontiff. When Liberius, after being tortured and threatened with death, eventually signed an ambiguously worded document, it was not seen as a racanting of the orthodox position, or an official declaration of Christian doctrine. It was seen as evidence of the violent methods the Arians would resort to inorder to ensure they had their way. The authority of the Bishop of Rome is not marked by this event, as we will see when we analyze the case of pope Honorius I.
No comments:
Post a Comment