Despite the claims of
Pope Callistus I
Hippolytus, a third century church father, tells us of the heretical views of
Callistus, the bishop of
He was then an impostor and knave, and in process of time hurried away many with him. And having even venom imbedded in his heart, and forming no correct opinion on any subject, and yet withal being ashamed to speak the truth, this Callistus, not only on account of his publicly saying in the way of reproach to us, “Ye are Ditheists,” but also on account of his being frequently accused by Sabellius, as one that had transgressed his first faith, devised some such heresy as the following. Callistus alleges that the Logos Himself is Son, and that Himself is Father; and that though denominated by a different title, yet that in reality He is one indivisible spirit. And he maintains that the Father is not one person and the Son another, but that they are one and the same; and that all things are full of the Divine Spirit, both those above and those below. And he affirms that the Spirit, which became incarnate in the virgin, is not different from the Father, but one and the same. And he adds, that this is what has been declared by the Saviour: “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?” For that which is seen, which is man, he considers to be the Son; whereas the Spirit, which was contained in the Son, to be the Father. “For,” says (Callistus), “I will not profess belief in two Gods, Father and Son, but in one. For the Father, who subsisted in the Son Himself, after He had taken unto Himself our flesh, raised it to the nature of Deity, by bringing it into union with Himself, and made it one; so that Father and Son must be styled one God, and that this Person being one, cannot be two.” And in this way Callistus contends that the Father suffered along with the Son; for he does not wish to assert that the Father suffered, and is one Person, being careful to avoid blasphemy against the Father. (How careful he is!) senseless and knavish fellow, who improvises blasphemies in every direction, only that he may not seem to speak in violation of the truth, and is not abashed at being at one time betrayed into the tenet of Sabellius, whereas at another into the doctrine of Theodotus.
-Hippolytus, A Refutation of All Heresies 9.7
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-13.htm#P2198_688334
It is clear that Callistus believed that the
Father and the Son being two persons was the same as Ditheism (i.e. he didn’t understand Trinitarian doctrine). From what Hippolytus
said, Callistus excommunicated Sabellius so that he would not appear as a heretic even though he held to a doctrine similar to Sabellianism
(i.e. Modalism). Roman Catholic defenders of infallibility such as www.newadvent.org will try to say that his critics, Hippolytus
and Tertullian, were lying just after they (i.e. the defenders of infallibility) admit that the only information that we have today
on Callistus are the writings of his critics. The Roman Catholic apologists (at www.newadvent.org/cathen/03183d.htm) try to
defend him by saying that Callistus was reacting to Hippolytus’ ditheism. Of course, it is always the reaction of all Unitarians
to call Trinitarians di- or tritheists. Hippolytus was the disciple of Irenaeus, the great Bishop of Lyons, and it is highly
unlikely that he held to any heresies about the Godhead. Even if Hippolytus did subscribe to heretical views, Tertullian, Callistus’
other critic, did hold to Trinitarian orthodoxy and accused Callistus of heresy. Philip Schaff, the great
1. That neither Hippolytus nor his master [i.e. Bishop Irenaeus] had any conception that the See of Rome possesses any pre-eminent authority, to which others are obliged to defer, is conspicuously evident from the history of both. Alike they convicted Roman bishops of error, and alike they rebuked them for their misconduct.
2. Hippolytus is the author of a work called the Little Labyrinth, which, like the recently discovered Philosophumena, attributes to the Roman See anything but the “infallibility” which the quotation from Irenaeus is so ingeniously wrested to sustain. How he did not understand the passage is, therefore, sufficiently apparent. Let us next inquire what appears, from his conduct, to be the true understanding of Irenaeus.
3. I have shown, in the elucidation already
referred to, how Irenaeus affirms that
4. Now, then, from Portus and from
-Philip Schaff, Introductory Notice to Hippolytus
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-04.htm#P222_10232
Whatever may be the case, Saint Hippolytus (www.newadvent.org/cathen/07360c.htm), resisted the Popes of Rome and didn’t believe them to be infallible.
Pope
Liberius
William Webster gives us the background behind the case of Pope Liberius:
“Liberius was pope during the Arian controversy from A.D. 352 to 366. He was initially a defender of the Nicene faith and an opponent of Arius’ teachings, for which he was deposed and banished by the emperor Constantius II. In his place the Roman clergy elected Felix II, an Arian, to replace him. Eventually Liberius acquiesced to Arian demands by signing an Arianizing confession from one of the Sirmian Councils and agreed to the excommunication of Athanasius, the champion of Nicene orthodoxy.”
-William Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Vol. II (Battle Ground, Washington: Christian
Resources, 2001), p.250.
After giving into Arianism, Liberius wrote letters to Arian bishops telling them that he did not, in
fact, defend Athanasius or the Nicene faith. In the past, these letters were declared to be frauds by Roman Catholics attempting
to defend Papal Infallibility, but now, their authenticity is no longer questioned by most scholars of all traditions. Hilary
of Poitiers, one of the defenders of Nicene orthodoxy that was exiled for a heroic stand against Arianism, records two of these letters
in his Collectio Antiariana and injects comments of his own attacking Liberius. Hilary calls Liberius “the prevaricator” and
anathematizes him several times:
“I anathematize you Liberius and your associates…Anathema to you prevaricating Liberius, twice and thrice!”
-Hilary of
And in another place:
“I say anathema to the prevaricator and the Arians!”
-Hilary of
Liberius resumed his reign as bishop
of
“Liberius purchased his return from exile from the Emporer by condemning Athanasius, and subscribing an Arian creed. ‘Anathema to thee, Liberius!’ was then the cry of zealous Catholic bishops like Hilary of Poitiers. This apostasy of Liberius sufficed, through the whole of the middle ages, for a proof that Popes could fall into heresy as well as other people.”
-Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p.56.
Roman Catholics have tried to rescue Liberius by saying that he didn’t teach ex cathedra. However, the facts are very clear. Pope Liberius signed a semi-Arian creed officially as Bishop of Rome and continued as a semi-Arian until it was safe to become orthodox again. Throughout the middle ages, theologians used his case as proof that Popes can and do err.
Pope Zosimus
During the time in which Augustine was battling the Pelagian heresy, Pope Zosimus wrote an encyclical letter (i.e. an official ex
cathedra letter as Pope) that stated that Pelagius and his disciple, Celestius, were orthodox and condemned the North African bishops
for declaring them heretics. Zosimus demanded that the North Africans (including Augustine) submit to his authority and likewise
recognize Pelagianism as orthodox. The North Africans responded by not following his order and further warning him that he was
being mislead by the two heretics. Zosimus replied that he had given much thought to the matter and was firm in his stance. So, in 418 A.D., the North Africans assembled a council at
“This is not a case of a pope expressing a private opinion, then becoming better
informed and changing his mind. This pope not only reversed the judgment of a previous bishop of
-William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), p.65.
The Fallibility of
Popes
(Part 1)