The Obedience of

Athanasius
This article
is written in
response
to the
many times
St.
Athanasius
of
Alexandria
is invoked
in support of clerics who are manifestly disobedient to
their superiors. "All those who desire to live godly in Christ
Jesus will suffer persecution" says St. Paul (2 Tim. 3:12).
The Church is composed of fallible, sinful men, and it is
always possible that a righteous person who desires only
the will of God and good of the Church will end up being
persecuted by ecclesiastical or secular authority. This is a
given fact of Christian life; the real question is how is a
Christian to respond to these trials? Specifically, how is a
cleric to respond when unjustly persecuted by those who
are his ecclesiastical superiors? The tradition of the
Church is that the virtue of obedience must govern all of
one's actions in regard to one's superiors; not to say that
obedience is totally blind or can bind when there is
question of sin, but it is generally admitted that, short of
sin, a cleric is bound to obey his superiors in all matters
pertaining to his office, even those orders he may
disagree with or find unjust. This obligation is even stricter
for those under religious obedience.
It often happens, however, that an unjustly persecuted
priest or cleric decides to "fight back." Now, it is always
licit to protest one's innocence and work within the
system to clear one's name. But sometimes a cleric will
decide to exit the system altogether by ignoring
ecclesiastical censures, removing himself from episcopal
obedience, or - what's worse - continuing to profess
obedience while flaunting it in practice by suggesting that
every order one disagrees with is invalid for this and that
reason. We are not talking about full-blown schism here;
there are many subtle ways one can remove oneself from
obedience short of schism if one is crafty and willful
enough.

Unjust Ecclesiastical Censures and the

External Forum

What is one to do when faced with an unjust ecclesiastical

censure, such as an excommunication or other penalty?

The traditional teaching of the Church is twofold: first, a

Catholic is always bound to observe the censures of the
Church in the external forum, even if they are unjust. This
means that a cleric who is under a censure - say,
excommunicated or has his faculties suspended - is
bound to observe this censure, even if he believes the
censure is unjust. This compulsion of obedience extends
only to the external forum; that is, the cleric who believes
himself wrongly excommunicated may continue to
personally believe the excommunication unjust and
consider himself still in full communion in God's eyes.
However, he is still bound to observe the external
restrictions imposed on him by the censure, both for the
sake of obedience and for the maintenance of
ecclesiastical discipline. Barring an emergency, he may
not simply ignore or disobey the censure because he
personally believes it is unjust or errant.

But the second aspect of the Church's traditional teaching

is that, while a censured cleric is always bound to observe
the censure in the external forum, he may use every legal
means at his disposal to protest an unjust censure. This is
one reason why canon law exists: to provide a sort of legal
framework for the Church to function, delineating the
rights and responsibilities of the varied members of the
Body of Christ. Thus, though a cleric is bound to obey an
ecclesiastical censure in the external forum, he may
appeal to the appropriate ecclesiastical body or to the
Bishop of Rome. He may go through all the channels
established by the Church to defend his case and prove
his innocence. No cleric is compelled to simply take unjust
abuse without some means of redress.

However - and this is key - while the appeal process is

going on, a cleric must continue to observe the censure
until the competent authority decides otherwise. A priest
who has lost faculties to say Mass and hear confessions
may appeal the judgment if he personally believes it to be
unjust, but until and unless he receives an affirmative
judgment from the competent authority, he is bound to
refrain from exercising his faculties. Even if his censure
were unjust, he may not simply ignore it because he
believes it to be so, even if there is good reason to think
the judgment may be overturned in the future. One may
not appeal to a hypothetical future vindication to justify
disobedience in the present.

Thus, one must always obey an ecclesiastical censure in

the external forum. This is in fact necessary for the
disciplinary powers of the Church to retain their potency. If
every person under an ecclesiastical censure were free to
disregard it if they personally considered it unjust, Church
discipline would be entirely subjectivized and the
censures would lose their power, since "Every way of a
man seemeth right to himself" and "the heart is deceitful
above all things" (Prov. 21:2, Jer. 17:9). A man may not
stand as a judge in his own case, and no man is free from
the obligation of obeying and ecclesiastical censure, even
an unjust one. To do otherwise is to rebel against the
disciplinary authority of the Church, save in cases of
emergency - which has traditionally been interpreted to
mean imminent death.
The Case of St. Athanasius

When we have previously posted articles on the obligation

of clerics to obedience, our writings have frequently been
met with sneering comments invoking St. Athanasius.
"Thank God Athanasius did not act that way." "So I
suppose you think Athanasius was wrong in his conduct
during the Arian controversy?" These are the sorts of
comments that exhortations to obedience are frequently
met with, as if Athanasius provided the historical
justification for disobedience whenever a cleric
subjectively thinks such disobedience is justified.

It is my contention that the life of Athanasius provides no

such justification; in fact, Athanasius perfectly exemplifies
the two-fold teaching we have elaborated above: that
while one can use every legal means within his means to
protest an unjust censure, unless and until it is overturned
he is bound to observe it in the external forum.

In order to understand the facts of St. Athanasius' case, it

is necessary to examine the details of his various troubles.
We will attempt to keep this as brief as possible, but as
Athanasius was exiled five different times under varying
circumstances, a certain amount of digression is
necessary. As we go, please note the specific
circumstances behind each of Athanasius' exiles and the
manner in which he responded. We will summarize the
pertinent points afterward.
The Five Exiles of St. Athanasius

The origin of the hostility of certain persons in the

ecclesiastical and imperial establishment came from the
saint's fierce opposition to Arius during the controversies
surrounding the First Council of Nicaea, at which time he
was a deacon assisting his bishop Alexander of Alexandria
as a theological adviser at the great council. Despite his
youth, his impassioned and thoroughly orthodox
opposition to Arianism earned him the animus of the Arian
party - as well as the signature which the deacon affixed
to an encyclical letter of his bishop condemning the
teaching of Arius. Thus, when Athanasius ascended to the
See of Alexandria only months after the close of Nicaea,
he was already a well-known opponent of the Arians, who
no doubt were seeking an opportunity of retribution. The
leader of the Arian faction of Alexandria was one named
Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis in Egypt.

But so long as the orthodox Constantine was on the

throne, Athanasius reigned in peace. Things began to
change after 330 when Constantine began to favor the
Arian party, going so far as to recall Arius from exile and
strongly compel Athanasius to reconcile the remaining
Arians adhering to Meletius. Athanasius opposed this, as
he knew the Meletians had not abandoned their heresy.
This refusal would lead to the beginning of Athanasius'
troubles, as Meletius would conspire with Eusebius of
Nicopolis, the foremost Arian of the Church, to harm the
Bishop of Alexandria.

The First Exile

St. Athanasius' first exile from 335-337 was occasioned

by complaints lodged against him by the Arian party of
Meletius. A synod was convened in Tyre under the Arian
Eusebius of Nicomedia, the foremost proponent of
Arianism in the east. The charges were various: that
Athanasius was of insufficient age when he was
consecrated, that he had attempted to levy linen taxes on
his diocese, that he secretly practiced magic, that he had
profaned the Sacred Mysteries, and even that he had
murdered somebody.

Seeing the absurd nature of the charges, Athanasius

refused to even participate in the proceedings and was
condemned in absentia. Though he refused to participate,
once condemned he appealed the synod's ruling to the
Emperor Constantine, who by this time was old and in ill
health. Athanasius dramatically presented himself before
the emperor while Constantine was returning from a hunt
to vindicate himself and ask for a fair trial. The Arian
faction, however, prevailed upon Constantine and
Athanasius was condemned on the flimsy charge of
interfering with grain shipments to Egypt. He was sent
into exile in Triers.

It is important to note that Athanasius was exiled and

disgraced, but not excommunicated. Furthermore, his
exile was imposed by the imperial court, not the Church.
He was neither excommunicated nor deprived of faculties.
He was received with joy by St. Maximinus of Trier and
other orthodox exiles and celebrated the sacred mysteries
in good standing with these men of faith.

The Second Exile

Athanasius remained in Trier until the death of

Constantine in 336, after which the new Emperor
Constantius II recalled him to take up his See at
Alexandria. He was reinstalled at Bishop of Alexandria with
much rejoicing.

His happiness was short lived, however, for the new

emperor was a stout Arian and the faction of Eusebius of
Nicomedia only grew in influence under the new regime.
The old charges against Athanasius were renewed, with
an added charge that he had ignored the decisions of a
legitimately convened synod and taken up his See without
episcopal permission. This is the one and only time
Athanasius was ever charged with disobedience to a
legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

To this it could be argued that Athanasius went into exile

because he had been condemned by an imperial order,
not because of a legitimate condemnation from any
ecclesiastical superior; the sham-synod that had
condemned him at Tyre had been overseen by a Count of
the imperial entourage who forbid any speech favorable to
Athanasius and ensured that the bishop was condemned
(Apol, I.14). Athanasius' decree of exile had been given by
an imperial order, not ecclesiastical. Likewise, Athanasius
returned home as a result of an imperial order.

Nevertheless, the Arians were not interested in the truth

of the charges. Emperor Constantius II pronounced an
edict of banishment against Athanasius in 338. But this
was not without protest; in 340 a synod of one hundred
bishops met at Alexandria and proclaimed Athanasius
innocent of the charges brought against him. Even while
these events were unfolding, they were highly
controversial. Athanasius always enjoyed considerable
support from the orthodox party in Egypt and abroad. The
common view of Athanasius contra mundum is true only
as a hyperbole, in the sense that Athanasius led the
orthodox resistance in speaking truth to power during the
reign of a particularly corrupt and heretical emperor. But
Athanasius was never entirely on his own, nor did he alone
save the Church from Arianism.

At any rate, Athanasius obeyed the imperial decree of

exile and left his See willingly, though as before, he sought
a legitimate means of appeal. In his first exile he had
appealed to Constantine; an imperial appeal to an Arian
ruler was out of the question this time, so Athanasius went
to Rome to appeal his case to the Pope.
Pope Julius received Athanasius joyfully and summoned a
special synod to examine the details of his case. In 341
the synod issued a declaration to the whole Christian
world that Athanasius was innocent of all the charges laid
against him. Pope Julius composed a letter to Eusebius of
Nicomedia, invoking his authority "in order that a just
judgment might be given in the presence of all parties"
(Apol. I, 23). But the Arians refused to participate in the
synod and Julius overturned the condemnation of Tyre,
declaring that Athanasius was not proven guilty of any
crime and that the whole proceeding of "suspicious
appearance" because Athanasius was not present to
defend himself; such procedures hold "no weight",
according to Julius (Apol. I,23).

Thus, canonically Athanasius was formally exonerated

when the synod and letter of Julius overturned the sham
proceedings at Tyre. The pope himself had declared him
innocent and overturned all charges against him.

But Athanasius could not return home, for he was still

under exile by decree of Constantius II. Therefore he used
his time to travel west to meet the famous Hosius of
Cordoba, the pope's representative at the Council of
Nicaea and champion of orthodoxy in Spain. Pope Julius
asked Hosius to convene another second synod in Sardica
to examine the case of Athanasius and again his
innocence was affirmed. Two letters were prepared
stating the judgment of the bishops of the west. It should
be noted other authorities suggest this second synod was
convened at the behest of the emperor, not the pope;
either way, the bishops again exonerated Athanasius of
any wrongdoing and the exiled bishop celebrated Easter
in 345 in exile in Aquileia in full communion with the pope
and the Church and was received with great joy by the
bishop there.

Angered at his reception in the West, Emperor

Constantius began persecuting the supporters of
Athanasius in the East and decreed that Athanasius
should be put to death if he tried to regain his See without
permission. But by 345 things were uncertain for
Constantius. His brother Constans, co-emperor in the
West, was threatening war against him. Constans strongly
supported Athanasius and orthodoxy. Constantius, seeing
common ground on which he could appease his brother,
gave Athanasius a favorable hearing and granted him
permission to return to his See in October of 345. In this,
Constantius was not sincerely repentant of his unjust
decree but merely sought an occasion to make a gesture
of goodwill towards his brother Constans.

The Third Exile

Athanasius returned home, but his peace lasted only a

short time. In 350 his imperial supporter Constans died,
leaving the Arian Constantius II sole emperor. Pope Julius
died soon after and was replaced by Pope Liberius.
Hosius of Cordoba was in exile. Athanasius' main political
and ecclesiastical supporters were gone and Constantius
II was more powerful than ever. The party of Eusebius of
Nicomedia again began scheming against Athanasius. It is
in this third exile that things really get sticky, as we come
to the famous waffling of Pope Liberius.

Athanasius must have suspected what was coming. He

had already been condemned by the sham synod of Tyre,
but Pope Julius had overturned this judgment. What
Constantius craved was that Athanasius should be
condemned by a western synod, one signed off on by the
pope himself. This way the judgment would be without
appeal. A council was soon summoned at Arles presided
over the bishop of Capua. Emperor Constantius II
threatened the bishops if they did not condemn
Athanasius. Terrified at Constantius' threats, the Synod of
Arles declared Athanasius guilty.

All that was necessary was for the pope to ratify the
condemnation of the synod. The pope at the time was
Liberius. Whatever his later faults, we may applaud the
pope in that Liberius refused to ratify this judgment. Pope
Liberius opined that the decision of Arles was invalid as it
was made under duress and asked Constantius for
another synod where the bishops might decide freely.
Note that, again, we see the pope invalidating the
judgment of a lower synod against Athanasius.
Constantius agreed to Liberius' request and a second
synod was held at Milan in 355. Milan proved to be no
better than Arles, however; in fact, it was even more
coercive as Constantius ordered the discussion to take
place in his presence at the imperial palace in Milan and
threatened the bishops with death or exile if they did not
ratify an Arian formula of faith and condemn Athanasius.
The western bishops who had exonerated Athanasius ten
years earlier this time were cowed by Constantius' threats
and condemned Athanasius. Only one bishop and the
papal legates protested. The synod found Athanasius
guilty of the same old accusations. Again Athanasius was
not present to answer his accusers.

It is notable, however, that again Pope Liberius refused to

ratify the decision of this synod because of the violence to
which the bishops were subjected. Constantius II had
grown tired of the pope's resistance to his schemes. Thus
Pope Liberius, the great defender of Athanasius, was sent
into exile by Constantius II. Constantius first tried to
induce the pope to join his side, but bribes to entice the
pope to adopt the Arian position failed. Constantius
summoned Liberius to Milan to confront him face to face.
There the pope told him, among other things, that
Athanasius had been exonerated at the Council of Sardica
and that the pope did not regard any of his
condemnations as canonically valid. As far as Liberius was
concerned, the emperor had exiled an innocent man.
Liberius was threatened by Constantius and the pope's
priest and deacon were scourged and tortured. Then
Liberius himself was maltreated by the emperor's
henchmen; the degree of his torture is not known, but
eventually, weakened by the severity of his treatment,
Pope Liberius signed a condemnation of Athanasius that
was presented to him by the Emperor. This was the one
and only condemnation of Athanasius by a legitimate
ecclesiastical authority, but of course granted that it was
done without hearing, in the absence of Athanasius, and
under torture and compulsion, its legal and moral weight
was and is completely nugatory. No churchman then or
since took this condemnation seriously. It was elicited
under torture and backed up only by imperial arms.

None of this mattered to the Arian emperor. In February,

356 Athanasius was arrested in the middle of divine
services, forcibly ejected from Alexandria and again sent
into exile. Now, given what we have noted above about the
completely illicit nature of Liberius' condemnation, how
did Athanasius respond to it? He obeyed, removing
himself from Alexandria and from active ministry. He spent
the next six years of exile in the Egyptian desert, hiding
with the monks of the region and devoting himself to
writing and the monastic lifestyle. It was here that he
composed some of his best works, including his "Letter to
the Monks" and "Apology to Constantius." His
ecclesiastical and imperial avenues of redress being
closed, the saintly bishop simply made the best of his
exile pursuing holiness and waiting for the will of God to
reveal itself.

The Fourth Exile

Things began to change with the death of Constantius II in

361. The Arian front had also cracked, having broken into
various factions (Arians vs. Semi-Arians) which weakened
their resolve against the orthodox. The new emperor, the
pagan Julian the Apostate, recalled all those bishops
exiled by Constantius. Athanasius subsequently returned
to his See in 362. Julian, however, was jealous of
Athanasius and decreed that Athanasius was not included
in the imperial decree of clemency and again exiled him.
Athanasius again left Alexandria, but his absence was
brief, for Julian died in battle ten months later in 363.

The Fifth Exile

Athanasius waited for a recall of exiles under the short-

lived orthodox emperor Jovian to return to his See, but
was exiled again in 364 when the new Arian Emperor
Valens decreed banishment to all bishops who had been
banished by Constantius. The population of Alexandria
bitterly protested this fifth exile, but Athanasius again
obeyed the decree and withdrew a short distance from
the city, taking up residence in the tomb of his father. The
Emperor Valens had not anticipated the great outcry that
Athanasius' exile occasioned among the people of
Alexandria and restored Athanasius to his See in January,
366. Though Valens continued to reign for another twelve
years until his violent death at the Battle of Adrianople,
Athanasius and the Nicene orthodox were left in peace,
largely due to the policies of Valens' co-emperor and
elder brother Valentinian, who favored Nicene orthodoxy.

This was the end of Athanasius' trials. From 366 until his
death in 373 he was left alone and allowed to exercise his
ministry in peace, writing, praying and trying to repair the
damage caused in the local church by the Arian heresy.

Athanasius Was Never Disobedient

The story is long and convoluted in many respects, but

several points should be evident. In the first place, though
condemned unjustly on several occasions, Athanasius
was always obedient to decrees both imperial and
ecclesiastical. Let us relate Athanasius' behavior
throughout his ordeals.

Athanasius' Obedience to Civil Authority

Athanasius was exiled five times, condemned by three

ecclesiastical synods, and once by the pope. Though the
precise relationship between Church and State, between
sacerdotium and regnum was only beginning to be
worked out, according to the precedents of the time it was
the role of the Roman Emperor to enforce ecclesiastical
decrees. A synod or council might anathematize or
condemn, but it fell to the secular arm to impose the
decree of banishment or imprisonment for a condemned
cleric. Though the Roman Emperors were not Athanasius'
immediate superiors, they were not acting outside of
accepted convention in proclaiming decrees of
banishment. Athanasius always complied with these
decrees, even though he knew they were unjust. He
sometimes appealed the decrees, as he did when he
appealed to Pope Julius against the decree of Constantius
II. But regardless of his personal belief about the validity
of these decrees, Athanasius always obeyed them in the
external forum. When Constantius exiled him, he did not
continue to operate from his See, did not debate the
extent of the emperor's authority in ecclesiastical matters,
did not obstinately refuse to acknowledge the sentence
against him, did not continue to minister as if nothing had
happen. Rather, he abdicated his See as commanded and
went into exile. He appealed his case to the pope, but in
the interim continued to observe the sentence against him
until the imperial authority reversed its decree. Athanasius
thus always obeyed in these matters.

Athanasius' Obedience to Ecclesiastical Authority

More pertinent to our discussion is Athanasius' obedience

to ecclesiastical authority. Athanasius was condemned by
three synods and exonerated at two. He was condemned
at Tyre, Arles and Milan. Each of these were regional
synods either dominated by the Arian party (Tyre) or else
manipulated by imperial force to a predetermined
outcome (Arles and Milan); in the case of Milan,
Constantius II personally threatened exile or death to
bishops who defied his wishes. Athanasius was never
present at any of these synods. The condemnation at Tyre
occasioned his first exile, while those at Arles and Milan
preceded the third exile. In each case, though Athanasius
clearly knew the procedures were flawed, the outcomes
predetermined, and the evidence fabricated, he did not
disobey the imperial decrees of banishment that flowed
from them.

This is not to suggest Athanasius did not fight or protest;

Athanasius is remembered for his vigorous defense of his
innocence, and his famous Apology Against the Arians
completely demolishes the charges against him and
ruthlessly exposes the sham procedures observed in
these synods. Since each ecclesiastical condemnation
was followed by an imperial decree of banishment, it is
difficult to hypothesize how Athanasius would have
responded had his condemnations been merely
ecclesiastical without the secular arm to back them up.
But while alternative history makes for interesting
speculation, we must work with what we have. While
Athanasius clearly disagreed with the legitimacy of what
was done to him, he observed the decrees of the synods
at least externally. This is proven by the following point.
Athanasius Worked Within the System

How do we know that Athanasius observed, at least

externally, the ecclesiastical decrees against him?
Because when he suffered their unjust penalties he
followed the proper procedural protocol in appealing
them. In the case of his condemnation at Tyre, he made
an appeal to Emperor Constantine; this was fitting,
inasmuch as imperial officials were present at Tyre to
ensure Athanasius' condemnation. Furthermore, since
Athanasius was bishop of a patriarchal See, there was no
one other than the pope to whom he could appeal. After
the emperors themselves condemned him, in the person
of Constantius II, Athanasius followed proper
ecclesiastical protocol in appealing to the bishop of Rome.
Pope Julius recognized as much when he stated that he
wished to settle the case with a just judgment between
the two parties. When even the pope turned against
Athanasius (at least putatively) in the case of Liberius,
Athanasius had no one left to appeal to, he simply waited
out his time of banishment.

What does it mean to "work within the system"? When

Athanasius faced penalties unjustly, he could have simply
remained in Alexandria, obstinately continuing in his
ministry and claiming that the condemnations against him
were unjust and lacked any binding force. He could have
fomented a schism between himself and the bishops
appointed to replace him. He could have reacted against a
corrupt ecclesiastical system that had failed to do him
justice and simply remained stationary, essentially daring
the emperor or the ecclesiastical authorities to do
anything about it. When he heard about Liberius'
excommunication, he could have said Rome was taken
over by Arians and called the pope and antichrist. In
essence, he could have bucked the whole system. But he
did not, and while it is certainly important to emphasize
that Athanasius vigorously fought the corruption and
heresy of his day, it must equally be stressed that he
always did so within the system. He never tried to uphold
his own innocence or position at the expense of the
system or ecclesiastical discipline.

Athanasius Was Never Legitimately Condemned by

Any Ecclesiastical Authority

It is often pointed out that Athanasius was condemned

and continued to minister in spite of his condemnations. It
must be noted, however, than not one of these
condemnations was canonically valid. Pope Julius
reversed the judgment and Tyre and declared its
procedures and determination invalid; Liberius did the
same for the synod of Arles as well as the proceedings at
Milan, the latter for which he was tortured and exiled. This
still leaves the special case of Liberius' excommunication
of Athanasius, which we shall address shortly; but it is
important to note that not one of the synodal
condemnations of Athanasius was considered valid. All
were overturned by the popes, and some (such as the
proceedings at Tyre), were protested by over 100 bishops
who objected to the unjust proceedings.

The Pope Exonerated Athanasius

It must be remembered that far from being in antagonism

with the pope, Athanasius was exonerated by both Pope
Julius and Pope Liberius. Julius vindicated him at a synod
in Rome and Sardica, and wrote a letter to Eusebius
proclaiming Athanasius' complete innocence and the
invalidity of the synod of Tyre. However, Liberius, too,
exonerated Athanasius. Some often portray Liberius as a
quasi-Arian who was a willing accomplice in the
persecution of Athanasius. In fact, Athanasius had very
high regard for Pope Liberius and thought him perfectly
orthodox. In his History of the Arians, Athanasius says, "
[Liberius] was an orthodox man and hated the Arian
heresy, and earnestly endeavoured to persuade all
persons to renounce and withdraw from it (History of the
Arians, Part V, 35).

Liberius, too, knew Athanasius was innocent of any

wrongdoing and any heresy. In his response to one of the
emperor's lackeys, Liberius maintains his opinion that
Athanasius is innocent and that he refuses to investigate
any charges of misconduct:

[Liberius said:] "How is it possible for me to do this

against Athanasius? How can we condemn a man, whom
not one Council only, but a second assembled from all
parts of the world, has fairly acquitted, and whom
the Chuch of the Romans dismissed in
peace? Who will approve of our conduct, if we reject in his
absence one, whose presence among us we gladly
welcomed, and admitted him to our communion? This is
no Ecclesiastical Canon; nor have we had transmitted to
us any such tradition from the Fathers, who in their turn
received from the great and blessed Apostle Peter. But if
the Emperor is really concerned for the peace of
the Church, if he requires our letters
respecting Athanasius to be reversed, let their
proceedings both against him and against all the others
be reversed also; and then let an Ecclesiastical Council be
called at a distance from the Court, at which the Emperor
shall not be present, nor any Count be admitted, nor
magistrate to threaten us, but where only the
fear of God and the Apostolic rule shall prevail; that so in
the first place, the faith of the Church may be secure, as
the Fathers defined it in the Council of Nicæa, and the
supporters of the Arian doctrines may be cast out, and
their heresy anathematized. And then after that, an
enquiry being made into the charges brought
against Athanasius, and any other besides, as well as into
those things of which the other party is accused, let the
culprits be cast out, and the innocent receive
encouragement and support. For it is impossible that they
who maintain an impious creed can be admitted as
members of a Council: nor is it fit that an enquiry into
matters of conduct should precede the enquiry
concerning the faith" (ibid, 36).

In short, both Athanasius and Liberius had high regard for

one another and were assured of each others' orthodoxy.
It was thus through compulsion and torture that Liberius
finally gave in and condemned Athanasius. The interesting
thing is that Athanasius himself exonerates and defends
Liberius for his action. Knowing as he did that Liberius
was a man of orthodoxy who believed in Athanasius'
innocence, Athanasius realized the condemnation issued
by the pope was due entirely to compulsion and defends
the pope's action:

"But Liberius after he had been in banishment two years

gave way, and from fear of threatened death subscribed.
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. They however attempted
everything in support of their heresy, while the people in
every Church, preserving the faith which they had
learned, waited for the return of their teachers, and
condemned the Antichristian heresy, and all avoid it, as
they would a serpent" (History of the Arians, Part V, 41)
Athanasius could have balked and called the
excommunication invalid; he could have called the pope
an antichrist in sermons and writings and continued his
ministry in spite of it. But in fact he did not; rather, by
virtue of the great love he had for Liberius and the
knowledge of his torture, he defended the man. This leads
into another popular myth about Athanasius: that he
"ignored" the pope's excommunication, something often
repeated. Sometimes it is even asserted that Athanasius
ordained other bishops and endowed them with
jurisdiction during his papal excommunication.

This latter point is without merit. None of the lives of

Athanasius mention him ordaining bishops in his exile in
Egypt, nor does Athanasius's own writings suggest this.
The great Church historian Baronius makes no mention of
it and the great Benedictine hagiographers the Bollandists
also do not say that Athanasius made any ordinations
while excommunicated by Liberius. No other traditional
Church historians make this claim. As far as I can tell, this
claim originates with Michael Davies and a
misunderstanding between Athanasius' exiles by the
Roman government and his period of excommunication
under Liberius. But it is fairly certain that Athanasius never
ordained bishops during his period of excommunication.

As to whether Athanasius "ignored" the pope's

excommunication, this is a difficult claim to sustain, since
when Athanasius heard Liberius had condemned him he
withdrew from his See into a quiet exile in the Thebaid in
Egypt. We have mentioned that he did not ordain bishops.
He continued to write and against the Arians, but this
hardly constitutes "ignoring" the pope since Liberius
never commanded him to cease writing. And, as we have
noted, Liberius was not an Arian and personally supported
Athanasius. Whatever Athanasius did against the Arians in
exile, he had no doubt that Liberius would have approved
of it since he knew the pope to be a man who hated the
Arian heresy.

The only way Athanasius could have "ignored" Liberius'

excommunication would be if he had continued to
exercise his jurisdiction as Patriarch of Alexandria in spite
of the condemnation. But as the secular authorities
physically removed him, this would have hardly been
possible.

Athanasius Never Lost Faculties

It might be objected that Athanasius disobeyed the pope

by continuing to offer Mass during the period of his
excommunication, since one who is excommunicated
loses his jurisdiction and faculties. This objection is facile;
for one thing, Athanasius left no record of what he did on
a daily basis while in exile. We know he stayed with the
monks of the Thebaid, we know he spent time writing and
praying, and we know that he had to hide at times to avoid
assassins sent to destroy him. But we actually do not
know whether Athanasius said Mass, although I have not
read everything on this saint and admit I may be mistaken.

That being said, it is usually implied that Athanasius

continued to say Mass during his six year sojourn in
Egypt. But even if he did, the argument that he was
disobedient to Liberius is errant for several reasons. For
one thing, the document signed by Liberius was drafted
by the partisans of Constantius II. Its purpose was simply
to condemn Athanasius and give grounds for his
deposition. It did not laicize Athanasius, or suspend him a
divinis, or deprive him of his priestly function - it
condemned him of certain criminal acts and
excommunicated him, which was what Constantius II
wanted for the purpose of securing an ecclesiastical
rationale for his banishment.

It could be argued that a suspension of faculties is implied

in an excommunication. It must be noted, however, that it
is not always helpful or accurate to impose later canonical
concepts back into eras in which they may not have
existed in such detail. It is improbable that the Church in
Athanasius' time recognized any sort of implication, most
likely because the distinction between faculties and
ecclesiastical jurisdiction were not thoroughly worked out
yet, and the act of a bishop taking possession of his See
with the formal assent of the Roman pontiff (the
conferring of the pallium) did not yet exist. Bishops took
possession of their See by virtue of their election to it, the
consent of the Roman pontiff being implicit if he did not
positively object. The right to say Mass and administer
sacraments flowed from the indelible character of Holy
Orders, and it was generally presumed that one who was
legitimately ordained could always exercise these powers.
When a cleric was excommunicated or deposed, the
procedure at the time was not to forbid them from saying
Mass, but to forbid other Christians from communing in
the same Mass with them. When Arius, or Nestorius, or
whomever was excommunicated, it was presumed that
they would continue to say Mass. They would not have
faculties revoked; rather, the faithful would be warned not
to worship with them.

In practice, this could be seen to have the same

implications: a priest with no faculties celebrating the
Mass offends God by his disobedience, just like a person
who communes with an excommunicated heretic offends
God by worshiping with heretics. But it should be
observed that the reason the faithful were warned against
communing with heretics was because they were heretics.
Athanasius was never condemned as a heretic, even
putatively. His condemnation had to do with false charges
of illicit consecration, murder, sorcery, etc. Thus, there is
no evidence that Athanasius had his faculties "revoked"
and yet continued to exercise them anyway.

Finally, it should also be noted that the excommunication

of Athanasius was never revoked. At the end of his exile
and the death of Constantius, Athanasius was simply
invited back to his See. As far as we know, the new pope
never revoked the excommunication of Liberius. No synod
was ever convened for formally exonerate Athanasius
from the censure of Liberius. What rationale could there
be for this? Perhaps it was never revoked because nobody
thought this was a legitimate or binding excommunication
to begin with, since it was elicited under torture by a man
who was a known public defender of Athanasius. It was
common understanding that the excommunication and
the circumstances surrounding it were utter rubbish. The
popes who followed Liberius knew it. Athanasius knew it.
The Roman emperors knew it. The universal episcopate
knew it.

That being the case, it is that much more impressive that

Athanasius obeyed his ecclesiastical censure in the
external forum since he and everyone else knew it to be a
sham.

Conclusion

Athanasius of Alexandria was always obedient to

ecclesiastical censures, even censures he knew were
given in error or unjustly. When he was condemned, he
always worked within the canonical system to appeal his
case and observed the censures in the meantime, never
ignoring or disdaining ecclesiastical discipline, for which
he had such a high regard. Far from being a model of
"justified disobedience", St. Athanasius is a model of
humble obedience - obedience of the sort that endures
whatever misfortunes befall, waiting patiently for the will
of God to reveal itself through circumstances.

Furthermore, we must always remember that while, in

justice, a victim of unjust censures always as a right to
speak up and defend himself, there is a higher way - the
way of patiently suffering without complaint, in imitation
of our Lord, who "opened not his mouth", who "as a sheep
before the shearers is dumb" (Isa. 53:7). This higher way,
the path of imitation of our Lord, is the kind of response to
unjust persecution that had made saints and has served
as the vehicle through which the will of God is revealed.

This article does not make any of these points with

reference to any specific person or group, but there are
certainly applications that can be made.

CLICK HERE FOR A PDF VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE