OCR Text |
Show burcb and tbe Papacy II -Pope's Power and Authority Limited--Liberius Orthodoxy Defended. (Written for the Intermountain Catholic.) In writing of the bishops of Rome, or the Supreme Pontiff, the great difficulty diffi-culty to be overcome is to give a correct cor-rect idea of Catholic belief. Admitting his plenary authority as Vicar of Christ on earth, or his infallibility when teaching faith and morals, the inference infer-ence drawn from the first teachings is that the Pope has sovereign authority over the faith and morals of Catholics, and could subject the same to his own whims by making faith and morals what he may please. This misunderstanding leads to an erroneous conception of Catholic faith, which is distinct and entirely independent indepen-dent of the Pope's will. He ha.s no power to impose an article of faith not in conformity with the written word. His sovereign authority as head of the Church is limited, and in such capacity he acts only as guardian and interpreter inter-preter of the faith. In defining faith and morals, he is restricted by the Bible. Only then does his infallibility intervene. But this prerogative does not mean that he can not sin, or that he may not err in matters that have no relation to faith or morals. As a man, in merely human affairs, his actions may not always be prudent, and may be subject to just criticism; crit-icism; but unless he officially teaches error in faith, or imposes an immoral doctrine, hi3 mistakes belong solely to himself. In the long list of supreme pontiffs there is no instance in record when one Pope contradicted his predecessors, prede-cessors, or taught different from the faith always taught. Efforts have been made to convict Pope St. Liberius with the Arian heresy, here-sy, which was more formidable than that of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, Liberius succeeded Julius I, in 352. After his elevation to the chair of Peter he upheld the creed of Athan-asius Athan-asius against" the Arlans, who rejected the eternal generation of the Word made 'flesh, also its equal divinity to that of the Father. Arius maintained that the Word was not consubstantial to the Father, alleging that such a conception was impossible to the human hu-man mind. He even maintained that the Son was not co-equal or co-eternal with the Father, that He was simply the first and highest of all finite beings, created from -nothing, by an act of God's free will, and that He ought not to be placed in the same category with the Father. Following his own private illumination, illumina-tion, and turning away from the ancient an-cient faith, Arius was condemned at the council of Alexandria in 321. Not heeding the condemnation and having many followers, four years later the Ecumenical Council of Nice was convoked con-voked in 325 with the approbation of the Pope. More than 300 bishops attended at-tended the council. Arius appeared in person and presented his novel doc- triii '?. whh h were condemned. Athana-sius. Athana-sius. a zealmis and learned young deacon, dea-con, presented and defended the Catholic Catho-lic ::u'th. His creed, which was always al-ways the foundation of Catholi" fuith. was universally adopt.-d an 1 appro-, d by tiic council, and still serves as an exposition o: the ancient faith. For unholding Athanasius against the Arians. 'ope Libtriu.s was exiled by Constantino. He returned from his ex-iie ex-iie in Beri.i to Rome- in o.'S. Some assert that Librius. territied and mentally broken, obtained his release by consenting con-senting to comb-inn some parts of th" Athanasiun creed, a:id subscribing to an Arian formula of faith, which was heretical. All impartial historians testify tes-tify that Liberius ne'vr condemned Athaiiasius, much less approved of the Arian formula. All efforts to connect the name of a t Pope whose memory is vcii-ratd by i the Church, with the espousal of any part of the Arean heresay, have t been made not in the interest of truth and religion, but, if possible, to break down thf claim that the Church has never contradicted herself, her-self, or that none of Peter's successors ever sanctioned or tausrht an article ot faith that was not taught or Hanctionet' from the beginning. Hostility to the bishop of Rome has led to many extravagant accusations. Judging his actions from a human point of view, the charges need not and will not. disturb the Catholic belief: but when his orthodoxy is arraigned, then the fundamental principle of Catholic faith is at stake, and must be defended. Liberius. in his teaching capacity, as head of the church was restricted to the doctrines defined at the Council of Nice held twenty-seven years prior to his election. How suppose that a man exiled for his faith, and always held in the highest esteem, would prove traitor to the cause of truth and justice, jus-tice, deny outwardly the faith which he inwardly believed, and promised to defend! In governing the Church he was subject to the law imposed fron: the beginning, and could not. to escap persecution in exile, compromise with, his own conscience by signing an Ariar formula. The Pope is subject to the Church's teaching just as much as his humblest subject, has no authority to introduct any new principle, or to change or reject re-ject principles hitherto recognized and acted upon. This, when fully understood, under-stood, should be sufficient to show that Pope Liberiu3 was the innocent victim of slanderous charges affecting his or-I or-I thodoxy. Like other fables, based on ! hostility to the Papacy, whn thoroughly thorough-ly investigated under the light of historical his-torical facts occurring at the time, they will be found to be not only '( groundless, but the very opposite of the Pope's teaching. (To be Continued.) |