"That the seat of Peter might not be dishonored by the occupancy of two bishops"

Gloria Romanorum ^ | 9/15/17 | Florentius

[Antoninus]

"This event [the death of (anti) Pope Felix] was, no doubt, ordained by God, that the seat of Peter might not be dishonored by the occupancy of two bishops; for such an arrangement is a sign of discord, and is foreign to ecclesiastical law."
~Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, ca. AD 440

This quote is taken from a curious bit of history when the Church was torn by the Arian heresy.

After the death of Constantine the Great in AD 337, sole rule of the empire eventually devolved upon his son, Constantius II. While Constantius was just as devoted to achieving unity within the Church as was his father before him, he unfortunately lacked his father’s patience and light touch when dealing with ecclesiastical affairs. In AD 355, Constantius was so fixated on unifying the Nicean orthodox, semi-Arian and Arian parties, that he deposed and exiled Pope Liberius when the latter refused to sign a condemnation of Saint Athanasius, the champion of orthodoxy who steadfastly opposed the heresy of Arius.

While Liberius was in exile, the Roman clergy elected a new pope—Felix II. Felix reigned for a little over a year, but it seems that the people of Rome never accepted him. In fact, they agitated loudly for the recall of Pope Liberius. In AD 357, Constantius gave in and ended the exile of Liberius. Why this happened is a matter of vigorous scholarly debate even to this day, and the ancient sources are quite confused. Did Liberius give in and sign documents assenting to a semi-Arian formula and condemning St. Athanasius? Did he recant upon his return to Rome? Or did he remain steadfast until the emperor simply ended his exile to appease the people of Rome?

These questions are probably not answerable, but once Constantius allowed Liberius to return to Rome, a curious thing happened, according to the 5th century ecclesiastical historian, Sozomen:

The bishops who were then convened at [a synod in] Sirmium wrote to Felix, who governed the Roman church, and to the other bishops, desiring them to receive Liberius. They directed that both should share the throne and discharge the priestly duties in common, with harmony of mind; and that whatever illegalities might have occurred in the ordination of Felix, or the banishment of Liberius, might be buried in oblivion.

Having two popes at the same time was a radical, unworkable solution to the problem. For the people of 4th century Rome, the idea of two popes was a complete non-starter. They welcomed Liberius back like a conquering hero. Felix, in the meantime, was chased out of the city, but it seems he never renounced the papal office. Sozomen concludes this episode, saying:

The people of Rome regarded Liberius as a very excellent man, and esteemed him highly on account of the courage he had evinced in opposing the emperor, so that they had even excited seditions on his account, and had gone so far as to shed blood. Felix survived but a short time; and Liberius found himself in sole possession of the church. This event was, no doubt, ordained by God, that the seat of Peter might not be dishonored by the occupancy of two bishops; for such an arrangement is a sign of discord, and is foreign to ecclesiastical law.

To read the entire passage from Sozomen in context, visit NewAdvent.com here. You can also read it in book form in the forthcoming new edition of The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen which should be published within the next month or so.

Interestingly, Liberius is the first pope in the 350 year history of the Church to that point who was not considered a saint of the Latin Church, though he is revered as such in the East. Felix II, however, was considered a saint, at least for a time.

[Antoninus]

A little Church history for your Friday.

[BipolarBob]

I take this was back when Popes could openly father children.

[TalonDJ]

What makes you say that?

[Antoninus]

I take this was back when Popes could openly father children.

Uh, at that point in history, married men could be ordained deacon, priest, bishop and Pope. In fact, there were a few instances where one Pope had others in his lineage, including Pope Silverius, who was the legitimate son of a former Pope.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Francis is a fake Pope

The ImPopester

[BipolarBob]

Did you read the article?

[BipolarBob]

Uh, at that point in history, married men could be ordained deacon, priest, bishop and Pope.

And uh, then God changed His mind and said no more married clergy, right? 1Tim. 4:2,3

[Iscool]

What about the many times that the popehood was passed from father to son, or sold to the highest bidder, or taken by someone who murdered the current pope??? Those didn’t sully the chair of Peter???

Peter the apostle did not have a ‘seat’...He knew he was a mere man...He wouldn’t let any one bow down to him...And he wouldn’t be caught dead sittin’ on a throne or wearing those funny, frilly clothes...

There was however a ‘Peter’ in that time frame, in that vicinity who fit THAT bill exactly...

[Mrs. Don-o]

The Catholic Church does not teach now, and did not teach then, that celibacy is an essential constitutive requirement of the sacrament of Holy Orders (deacon-priest-bishop).

Nobody says, or said, that it was commanded by God.

Although it was "commended" by St. Paul.

(1 Corinthians 7:7-8): “I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.”

[BipolarBob]

The next verse reads “But if they cannot control themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. “ Letting clergy marry might cut down on the pedophilia and drug fueled gay orgies that plague some denominations. Not eliminate it maybe but cut it down.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“The Catholic Church does not teach now, and did not teach then, that celibacy is an essential constitutive requirement of the sacrament of Holy Orders (deacon-priest-bishop).”

I see in today’s news that you are correct about celibacy not being a requirement”

Sep 15 2017, 12:01 pm ET
Vatican Recalls Priest at Washington Embassy Amid Child Porn Investigation

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/vatican-recalls-priest-washington-embassy-amid-child-porn-investigation-n801641

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Hey, here's more evidence that celibacy is not required of Roman priests, popes or peeps:

"Vatican police raided a drug-fueled gay sex party at a top priest’s apartment near the city, according to an Italian newspaper report.

"The apartment’s occupant, who was not named by police, serves as a secretary to Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, a personal adviser to Pope Francis.

"The apartment belongs to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith — the branch that reviews appeals from clergy found guilty of sexual abuse of minors, according to Italian daily Il Fatto Quotidiano, which first published the explosive report.

... "Police arrested the priest and hospitalized him to detox him from the drugs he had ingested, according to the newspaper.

"He was taken in for questioning, presumably on drugs charges, as gay sex is legal in Vatican City.

Vatican police raid drug-fueled gay orgy at top priest's apartment

Right in the article it says "gay sex is legal in Vatican City." There you have it. You were correct.

[Antoninus]

Letting clergy marry might cut down on the pedophilia and drug fueled gay orgies that plague some denominations.

Right. Because that has helped the Orthodox...

Homosexuality and Clergy Sexual Abuse Rampant in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese and the Orthodox Church in America

And the Protestant sects...

Abuse by Clergy Is Not Just a Catholic Problem

[livius]

Gentlemen, you have taken what could have been an interesting thread on an important point and turned it into your usual Catholic-bashing that then makes Catholic posters defend the Church and completely rips the thread apart.

The question of whether there can legitimately be two bishops holding the See of Peter is very important; since the answer appears to be “no,” that means Francis is an anti-pope and hence not the legitimate pope. Which I knew all along anyway.

[BipolarBob]

Abuse by Clergy Is Not Just a Catholic Problem

I never said it was.

[BipolarBob]

"turned it into your usual Catholic-bashing that then makes Catholic posters defend the Church"

I was just commenting on the historical truth of married clergy in the past. That it.

The question of whether there can legitimately be two bishops holding the See of Peter is very important; since the answer appears to be “no,” that means Francis is an anti-pope and hence not the legitimate pope."

Agreed.

[TalonDJ]

Only the excerpt. Did not see anything about them having kids.

[Antoninus]

Gentlemen, you have taken what could have been an interesting thread on an important point and turned it into your usual Catholic-bashing that then makes Catholic posters defend the Church and completely rips the thread apart.

Sigh. They can't help themselves, can they?

The question of whether there can legitimately be two bishops holding the See of Peter is very important; since the answer appears to be “no,” that means Francis is an anti-pope and hence not the legitimate pope. Which I knew all along anyway.

Or it means that the resignation of Benedict XVI is legitimate and he is no longer a bishop. The "Pope Emeritus" title is nonsense and should never have been put out there. There can not be two bishops of Rome at the same time. One of them will be known to history as an anti-pope in that case.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You have drawn some conclusions which do not follow logically or legally.

There is a difference between civil law (Vatican City, which is a civil state) and Church law. Gay sex per se is not punishable as a crime by law in your state, my state or anywhere in the USA, nor in any non-African, non-Islamic countries in the world, as far as I know. But gay sex is a sin of great depravity for anyone, old or young, married or single, gay or straight, cleric or laity, whether or not it is in the criminal code where you live.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (LINK):

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."

They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

What was reported about the gay sex/drug activity by top clerics is extremely depraved. I expect they will be both prosecuted by the applicable civil laws (e.g. drug abuse) and then suffer the appropriate ecclesiastical penalties: being fired from whatever posts they hold, being deprived of their priestly faculties (not authorized to perform any

This behavior is detestable and damnable.

As the Church teaches.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Celibacy is a requirement for those who are vowed celibates (which in Western Catholicism includes about 99% of our priests, as they are not married.)

Chastity --- the virtuous conduct of sexuality according to your state in life, which entails honorable sexual union for the wedded husband and wife only, and absolute abstaining from sex for the unmarried --- is required of every person without exception.