The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionThe shortest pontificate and a heretical one
by Richard McBrien on Sep. 19, 2011
Many Catholics and media people -- at least those with enough interest to care -- believe that the late Pope John Paul I must have had the shortest pontificate of all time. Not so. John Paul I is generally regarded as having had the 11th shortest pontificate in all of papal history: 33 days.
On the other hand, the current 10th shortest pontificate (Benedict V, May 22-June 23, 964, or 32 days) may some day be stricken from the record books because his pontificate was canonically dubious. But John Paul I’s 33 days in office will still be well behind the pack.
Actually, the shortest pontificate of all was that of Urban VII, who was elected on September 15, 1590, and who died 12 days later, before his coronation, on September 27.
Born Giovan Battista Castagna, he was the nephew of Cardinal Verallo. This blood relationship certainly did not hurt. He would serve as papal legate to France, archbishop of Rosanno (also known as Rozzano), governor in the Papal States, an active participant at the Council of Trent (1562-63), nuncio to Spain, consultor (later inquisitor general) to the Holy Office, and a cardinal-priest of San Marcello al Corso (1583).
When he was elected pope, many had great hopes that his would be a reformist but temperate pontificate. Although he had been in good health up to that point, he contracted malaria the night after his election and died soon thereafter. He was buried in the basilica of Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome.
He was succeeded by Niccolò Sfondrati, with the assistance of the pro-Spanish cardinals and after a two-month conclave. Sfondrati took the name of the pope who had made him a cardinal, Gregory XIII. Unfortunately, he was one of the least popular and least successful of all the popes in history.
One could wonder about the subsequent history of the church had Urban VII lived and Gregory XIV never been elected, just as one could wonder what the years after John Paul I’s election would have been like if he had lived and John Paul II had never been elected.
September was also the month in which one of three popes (Vigilius and Honorius I were the others) who fell into material (as opposed to formal, or knowing and deliberate) heresy died. Indeed, Liberius, elected on May 17, 352, was the first pope not to be listed among the saints and is generally regarded to have been a weak pope.
He first opposed the Arians’ condemnation of St. Athanasius of Alexandria (d. 373), the leading
figure at the Council of Nicaea in 325, for which he was deposed from office by the Arian emperor Constantius and sent into harsh exile in Thrace.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Liberius eventually submitted and was readmitted to the Roman see, which by that time and with the support of the emperor had elected a second bishop, Felix II (d. 365), technically an antipope.
It is interesting to note that Damasus, Liberius’ eventual successor in the papacy, was for a time in Felix’s service as a deacon, in defiance of the oath taken by the Roman clergy not to recognize anyone else as the Bishop of Rome while Liberius was still alive.
The Roman public, however, never accepted Felix as their bishop, and clamored for the return of Liberius. The emperor, under popular pressure, allowed Liberius to go back to Rome, but on the condition that he jointly rule with Felix.
Felix, however, retreated to the suburbs of Rome in the face of a potential riot, but it was only after the death of Constantius in 361 that Liberius returned to orthodoxy and made an effort to restore the Nicene faith to the universal church.
He published a decree voiding the decisions of the pro-Arian Synod of Rimini (359), at which the Western bishops had been bullied into accepting an Arian creed.
At the same time, Liberius urged his fellow Italian bishops to reestablish communion with those bishops who had embraced the Rimini decisions, on condition that they now accept the Nicene Creed. He did the same for Eastern bishops four years later.
Liberius was also the builder of the huge Liberian Basilica, which was transformed in the fifth century to the major basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore (St. Mary Major), which still stands today as one of the four major basilicas of Rome (along with St. Peter’s, St. John Lateran, and St. Paul’s Outside the Walls).
Liberius, however, has usually been remembered as a betrayer of the faith and his name was even invoked by opponents of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council (1870).
© 2011 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
At first I thought you were
At first I thought you were talking about our present pope.
He is HERETICAL if he states that the SSPX do not need to follow or consent to the documents on Vatican II, especially with relations with Jews and non Catholics then we should push for his removal.
NEVER in this or the last century have there been such discontent WITHIN the Church, from Ireland, Austria, Africa, Europe etc.
His election was a MISTAKE and the truth be known, most hierarchs feel the same.
Wait and pray for the NEXT conclave, things will change...
The pope already sent them a
The pope already sent them a document saying that they must accept that the teaching of Vatican II was a valid, pastoral council.
Oh, I don't know about
Oh, I don't know about that!
He recently sent over a "new" preamble without publishing it for all to review. I'm skeptical.
You, dear Anonymous, are much
You, dear Anonymous, are much more optimistic than I considering that JPII and BXVI have loaded the college with toadies in the image of their own narrow vision of what the Reign of God ought to be in and for this world.
Hello Father! Thanks for the
Hello Father!
Thanks for the post. I am optimistic because conclaves tend to sometimes go against the prevailing winds. Paul VI was too liberal so they chose JPI, he was older and died after about 1 month so they chose a younger man JPII. He lasted too long so they chose old B16 for a "5 yr stint". Interestingly, after 25 years filling the college of cardinals with conservatives by JPII the conclave almost elected the liberal Martini on the first vote! And this was after a "successful" papacy. It wasn't until political maneuvering, organizing votes etc that B16 was elected on about the 5th vote. He only won because of the unexpected large crowds at JPII's funeral seemed to indicate a continuation of conservatism. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Remember, they are company men and are loyal to the one that gave them the raise! They follow the leader. But after he is gone they tend to want to make change and reveal their REAL agendas if past conclaves are any indication. Sure, you'll always have a few nuts like Burke and Sodano but the majority aren't that extreme.
Rest assured (I hope) it WON'T happen again! They all read the newspapers. The overiding concern at the next conclave will be: It isn't working, we need change.
Liberius sounds familiar. I
Liberius sounds familiar. I wonder why...
Thanks for this piece -- it
Thanks for this piece -- it is always well to be reminded of our history, warts and all, as it were. As familiar as I am with the competing papacies of the 11th and 12th centuries, I had forgotten that there were "anti-popes" as far back as the 4th century.
And the "What if..." questions are always tantalizing. Some say it is idle speculation, but such questioning is a good way to bring into focus our history or, for the modern period, our concerns for the Church.
Not only have there been
Not only have there been anti-popes. Don't forget the uncle-popes, too, were also a big part of our Church history.
And your point is ? ? ?
And your point is ? ? ?
There is no point. He has his
There is no point. He has his grad assistants come up with this stuff and pass it off as journalism.
perhaps if you two, agatha
perhaps if you two, agatha christie and candy darling, could pause in your tsking tsking over your tea party about the finest and most long standing and independent and scholarly of our weekly Roman Catholic journalists, author of our standard texts on Catholicism, professor of Roman Catholic theology at our pre-eminent Roman Catholic university, perhaps then you might have a moment to disturb yourselves enough to READ THE ARTICLE, and thereby discover through your disciplined academic application what's the point of all of this . . .
but it is not likely . . .
pointless tsking is so much more satisfying . . .
Are you saying that the
Are you saying that the recently reissued Lives of the Popes - reissue: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI (doubtless one source for all of this) was patched together by grad assistants rather than the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien's lifetime of relentless and honest scholarship in the field of our papacy, work which this present article demonstrates continues with reflection and serious research.
When we look at all the
When we look at all the modernist & heterodox bishops in today's Catholic Church, we can see that this period in the Church's history is not unique. At one time a majority of the Catholic bishops in the world were Arian heretics. The modernism which was condemned by Pius X also shows up in the papacies following that of Pius XII. Benny is the most orthodox of the five which followed the last truly Catholic Pope, Pope Pius XII.
Paulte, Normally I appreciate
Paulte,
Normally I appreciate your comments, however, you have gone where I cannot follow. The condemnation of modernism was lifted decades ago. To be sure, certain manifestations of modernism will always lead to error, but not every manifestation. For instance, the modern philosophy of phenomenology has been very fruitful soil in which orthodox theology has flowered and borne wonderful fruit. Marxism, however, is always bad. Even existentialism has been used to some success. Pius X condemned modernism as a pastoral measure. Pastoral measures are, by their nature, defined by a given time and place. Since the holy pontificate of Pius X the Church has had time to explore modernism and determine which manifestations were good and bad. We simply do not condemn ALL of modernism, it is far more nuanced than that.
Paul, and paul, please
Paul, and paul, please explicate your reserach substantiating this briefest of your phrases: "Marxism, however, is always bad."
To the wealthy capitalist corporation this may seem temporarily true, but how for the poor, especially as Marxism, like Christianity, has never been tried, at least not since the time of the Apostles, for whom the social economy we describe as "From each according to their gifts; to each according to their needs."
By killing our Liberating Theology, and accepting bribes of simony from wealthy contributers like marcial, Wojtyla killed our Church. Nevertheless, we see this most vital path of our Faith reborn even in such works as Ratzinger's Charity in Truth: Caritas in Veritate, and in God Is Love: Deus Caritas Est, ironic as Ratzinger served eagerly as Wojtyla's hatchetman and bag boy.
Read Friar Boff. Know our Faith in her fullness, and live it, in love!
Now, now, Father
Now, now, Father O'Brien!
Anyone who reads the details of papal history understands the necessary boundaries that must surround the doctrine of papal infallibility, and the absurd extensions some would add to papal infallibility. I think this is what you might be getting at, Father.
It is neat proposition that what a modern pope carefully states about our 2000-year-old faith is correct (insofar as it restates ancient Christian belief) and (therefore, as a restatement) requiring and deserving our belief. For example, that Christ was fully human and also, the Second Person of the Trinity and fully divine: this is something that we must believe, and reiterations of this by modern popes require and deserve our attention and our belief.
It is not, however, an ancient Christian belief that women must for all times be secondary or inferior to males in the ministry of the faith. That women held inferior positions in many aspects of domestic and community life in the early centuries may be true, but there have been many other changes in society since the time of the early Roman Empire: slavery has been abolished (and is criminalized when nevertheless found) in all civilized countries; findings and theories of modern science are acknowledged and respected (to the extent that they serve life); and republican and democratic governments are now tolerated -- and the mid-19th century papal condemnations of republicanism and democracy in Pope Pius IX's "Syllabus of Errors" has been quietly withdrawn or explained away. There are many other examples of papal corrections, but these are enough for here and now.
So, if you, a Catholic, vote in a democratic election now (to fill a secular government office), you are no longer a condemned sinner. If you are a woman who enters a Catholic church you no longer need a hat, and if you have just delivered a bouncing baby boy (or girl), you may approach the Eucharist without having to be "churched" beforehand. If you own or control a company that uses people in "sub-human" circumstances (on other continents or wherever to manufacture your product), you are practicing a form of slavery, and this Church today if it knew about you, would tell you that you were committing the sin of slavery -- whether any government catches up with you or not. If you believe in Life, you would vote, when the opportunity arises, against having capital punishment, although the Papal States even into the 19th century continued to sanction and carry out executions.
Times change! If popes would concentrate on Christ (what we believe about Christ, which is an unchanging message but which often needs reiteration), their infallibility about Christ would be more intelligible. And they might better deal with and acknowledge changing social, political and economic mores and the physical world. Trouble must come for the papacy when popes mix concepts of infallibility with their understanding of such mores or the physical world. This is the area where "creeping infallibility" advances and makes for some absurd theatre and some great tragedies. Not only does the papacy suffer, but ordinary people get really hurt, and good people lose their faith. The goal of reunification within the Western Church stalls, and a godless spirit advances upon us all.
Papal history teaches how we must respect papal teachings about Christ -- and how we should evaluate other papal expressions.
Vincent
Vincent, Papal infallibility
Vincent, Papal infallibility and primacy have both sprung from aberrations of history. Both doctrines stem from an ancient and very simple principle recognized by the Fathers, the early councils, and recognized by the popes themselves that the bishop of Rome, together and only with the universal episcopate, ensures the inviolability of the Church's teachings. The bishop of Rome neither invents or devises any teaching of his own and there is no early historical warrant for him to do so.
Rome has polluted that original principle and created an historic hoax, a gigantic fraud we see exercised since Pius IX and again by Pius XII.
If the Arian Christology had
If the Arian Christology had been accepted as correct and the Nicene as heretical,Christianity might have avoided much of its subsequent fanaticism.
Ah yes, nothing like denying
Ah yes, nothing like denying the true reality of Jesus's divine natue as a recipe for success.
You have displayed precious little understanding of what the Arian controversy was about.
and what Peter is this divine
and what Peter is this divine nature?
"God is Love" the Holy scripture teaches us, and repeatedly commands us in myriad ways to love.
Love only, and the rest just melts away.
Love one another, even the enemy, the unloved and unlovable, whom most we are called and commanded to love.
Or we show precious little understanding of our Faith, which is Love.
Ah the tired liberal idea
Ah the tired liberal idea that somehow John Paul I would have ordained women, advocated for abortion, praised gay sex, and whatever other pet issues they have...
You completely and totally do
You completely and totally do not get or purposely misrepresent what others think and feel about John Paul I and what he would have brought to his papacy. How foolish.
Did you actually read the
Did you actually read the article? I'm not sure where you came up with this except perhaps in the dank caverns of our own paranoia.....
Ah the tired liberal idea
Ah the tired liberal idea that somehow John Paul I would have ordained women, advocated for abortion, praised gay sex, and whatever other pet issues they have...
========================================================================
Please, no liberal OR conservative with half a brain and a scintilla of knowledge of Pope John Paul I would ever have concluded he was prepared to do any of these things.
One could also argue that
One could also argue that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI are "material" heretics. John Paul II, in "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" argued that Christiainity was superior to Judaism, Islam and Buddhism because Christinaity was supposdly founded by "God" (Jesus) while the other reigions were founded by 'mere' men. Simiarly, in "Jesus of Nazareth," Bendict VVI argured that, while Jesus could call God father by right, we can call God father only by special dispensation fom "God" -- Jesus.
I don't know whether to laugh
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. How does that make them heretics?
What's worse than mere
What's worse than mere "heresy" here is that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI were either smoking behind the barn during Church history courses in the seminary and missed the most recent biblical scholarship. Both of them end up teaching childish bilge most scholars today would relegate to the level of a very poor CCD program.
Not so. John Paul II never
Not so. John Paul II never said that Christianity was "superior" to Judaism, nor did he deny that Judaism was founded by God--since God gave the Torah to Moses. And yes, Christianity and Judaism are unique in that both were founded by a revelation from God: the Torah to the Jews, Jesus Christ the God-man to the Christians, who of course fulfills the Torah, whereas Islam and Buddhism were founded by mere men.
And Benedict XVI nowhere says that Jesus gives us a "dispensation" to call God "Father," as if it is something illicit or irregular which requires special permission. We can call God "Father" by virtue of our baptism into Jesus Christ, wherein we become co-heirs with Him.
This is very basic theology.
our shortest one was followed
our shortest one was followed by our most heretical one
Good point, question for McB
Good point, question for McB - “And your point is ? ? ?”
1. McB accused Pope Liberius (also Vigilius and Honorius) for being “heretical” (material as opposed to formal, or knowing and deliberate) without providing credible and convincing evidence.
2. He claimed that “Liberius eventually submitted and was readmitted to the Roman see.”
The historical evidence for this claim is not strong enough. Even if Liberius did “cave in”, he was certainly under much pressure and coercion while in forced exile or imprisonment. Ironically, McB did admit and acknowledge that Liberius was very orthodox both before and after his forced exile (“opposed the Arians’ condemnation of St. Athanasius” and “made an effort to restore the Nicene faith to the universal church.”)
3. McB: “but it was only after the death of Constantius in 361 that Liberius returned to orthodoxy.”
The more accurate and fair historical account is that he disapproved of the Rimini decision, and after the death of Constantius at the end of 361 he was than able to “publicly” annul it.
4. McB: “ ,,,,, his name was even invoked by opponents of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council (1870).”
Assuming that the accusation of the failure of Liburius was true, the alleged temporary lapse occurred under duress. Therefore, “Papal infallibility” was never an issue in this case.
5. Ironically and perhaps hypocritically, McB (by default) seems to be defending “orthodoxy” here by his accusation of Liberius for being “heretical” at one point in time.
6. If McB is not hypocritical, he would have stood up for and defended “Papal infallibility” (an “orthodox” doctrine, pun also intended) regardless of whether his accusation of Pope Liberius is legitimate or not.
Some protestants think the
Some protestants think the Pope is the anti-Christ. If they are correct, would that make an anti-pope a christ?
Betrayer of the Faith---
Betrayer of the Faith--- Liberius--- St. Mary Major--- Bernard Law--- hmmmm.
Full circle?
charles j scanlon said, "our
charles j scanlon said, "our shortest one was followed by our most heretical one."
i couldn't agree more, Charles. The pope that should be honored and remembered most is JOHN XXIII. He has been swept under the papal rug along with tens of thousands of victims of priest sexual abuse.
Back in the days of castles, knights, serfs and other heretical popes, the People of God were not privy to information. However, we in the 21st century are. We know. We understand. Like children who live in a dysfunctional home, we have FIGURED IT OUT! We know how to read the clues.
When 'daddy' comes up with a hare-brained, ridiculous idea like the "New (Old) Missal, we are told that we have to swallow it and obey. We are offered no chance for an opinion of one's own in this kind of family. ' (Holy) 'Father' says, "My way or the highway!"
However, the People of God that have been liberated by Vatican II will not accept Middle-Ages obedience expectations and sanctions, WE ARE THE PEOPLE OF GOD and ALL ARE CALLED TO HOLINESS!!
This is interesting. A
This is interesting. A priest, who is a liberal fundamentalist, uses an argument normally used by conservative fundamentalist Protestants. He does so with the same object: showing that Catholicism is wrong about the papacy. Thus he shares their hatred of the Church and the desire to undermine the faith of Catholics. In fact he makes the same errors that fundamentalists do. I suggest the book Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid. It devotes a whole chapter to Liberius. Anti-Catholicism makes for strange bedfellows. Fr. McBrien I think it is time for you to go gently into that good night and retire gracefully. You've done enough harm. Your adolescent rebellion is just plain embarrassing.
The current and present pople
The current and present pople are in chism with many gospel teachings. Remember that, and so are the clergy and theologians who prop them up.
I suggest, J, you read the
I suggest, J, you read the excellent treatise on our Papacy by this very Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien entitled Lives of the Popes - reissue: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI and therein will you perceiev ineluctably that this great Roman Catholic scholar and Faithful Priest actually wrote the book on the topic, filled with his wisdom and knowledge and great faithful love of the office, as of our Holy Mother Church.
If I may paraphrase your expression, Your adolescent and insupportable diatribe here is just plain embarrassing, and requires further such study before correction to the Truth, and to Justice, and ultimately to Love within our greater Church community.
charles j scanlon said, "our
charles j scanlon said, "our shortest one was followed by our most heretical one."
i couldn't agree more. The pope that should be honored and remembered most is JOHN XXIII. He has been swept under the papal rug along with tens of thousands of victims of priest sexual abuse.
Back in the days of castles, knights, serfs and other heretical popes, the People of God were not privy to information. However, we in the 21st century are. We know. We understand. Like children who live in a dysfunctional home, we have FIGURED IT OUT! We know how to read the clues.
When 'daddy' comes up with a hare-brained, ridiculous idea like the "New (Old) Missal, we are told that we have to swallow it and obey. We are offered no chance for an opinion of one's own in this kind of family. ' (Holy) 'Father' says, "My way or the highway!"
However, the People of God that have been liberated by Vatican II will not accept Middle-Ages obedience expectations and sanctions, WE ARE THE PEOPLE OF GOD and ALL ARE CALLED TO HOLINESS!!
I find your post funny
I find your post funny because your statement: "WE ARE THE PEOPLE OF GOD and ALL ARE CALLED TO HOLINESS!!" is actually a very old, 'Middle-Ages' idea.
"(Holy) 'Father' says, "My way or the highway!""
- You know, the one who the Holy Father represents here on Earth said the same thing, albeit in different words.
At the time, the Pope was not
At the time, the Pope was not head of the universal church, just the Western branch of it. The See of Peter had moved to Constantinople - and there is a good argument for the fact that it remains there to this day.
While I agree that the light
While I agree that the light provided by the information age is a good thing- upon those who would abuse power be it secular or ecclesial, I never understood this Vatican II nonsense. For all of its great promises of "renewal", our churches are emptying. If it wasn't for our immigrant population (God Bless them) we'd be done. It seems to me if we truly listened to the Holy Spirit we'd be honest about what works and what doesn't- what is blessed and what is cursed.
The new missal is a worthy pastoral attempt to address some ridiculous liturgical excess. The failed experiment has been acknowledged and addressed. The liturgical life of the church would have benefited from authentic reform in the 60's, instead we had a circus.
(Notwithstanding the "pastoral" status of VII) Our greatest scandal is that we were wrong in a matter of faith and doctrine.... either the pre-Vatican II church was wrong or the current one is. The divide is too great. The common V2 explanation of "development of truth" to justify the absurdity of V2 belongs in a course about process theology or marketing. Vatican II is a fine piece of work if you're protestant or a cultural catholic with no real allegiance to the faith other than by birth in a catholic home.
The 70's Catholicism of beer and pizza masses and Bishop DeRoo in a clown suit are gone... the adherents of the V2 church are dying...still grasping their ukeles... That expression of faith will meet the same fate as the modern Lutherans, Episcopalians and "main-liners": extinction.
Vatican II calling us to Holiness? "By their fruits we shall know them"... The People of God are apparently called to extinction on that trajectory, despite their noble objection to middle-ages obedience.
The Holy Spirit will restore/evolve/guide the Church and not through whatever the heck Vatican II was. Or perhaps I'm wrong....we'll see.
I wonder how it is that you
I wonder how it is that you have come to live in a world where you can distort so much of what has happened since Vatican II. Granted, there were excesses in "experimentation," but it was a small part of the work done by the Church to put the VII Documents into practice. Why not see things as growth and development - even struggling efforts they may have been and are - rather than the splitting into "either/or" that you employ so liberally? I would suggest that, particularly right now, this way of thinking about VII, before it and after it, is what is tearing aspects of the Church apart (although I do not believe the Church is imploding, as some commentators have stated). Instead, we need to seek the truth and the spirit of all things in the life of the Church: there is plenty of error and foolishness in all ages of the Church, but there is also plenty of the most sacred and valuable in them as well. Our faith has evolved since its very beginnings, and to think there haven't been some major stumbling along the way is real foolishness. But, if our Church is indeed guided by the Holy Spirit (formerly the Holy Ghost)you can't have it both ways, that such-and-such is "good" and such-and-such is "bad." Those that cling to such views are of no use to the Church, because it can never, by it's very nature and path, stand still. Nor should we.
What about Celestine II
What about Celestine II (Teobaldo) whose election was valid and who, although he submitted to the other faction, was pope for a day in 1124?
Post new comment