Talk:Liberian Catalogue

Claims the list are false

Catholic historian, Bishop Lewis Du Pin (d. c. 1725), wrote; ‘Sadly, the catalogues of Bishop Eusebius are forgeries or inventions of later times’. ‘De Antiqua Ecclesiae Disciplina’, Bishop Lewis Du Pin (Folio, Paris, 1686) - http://www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati_Leaks/post/Mythical_Vatican_predecessors/ ‘As for the pretend catalogues of succeeding bishops of the different assemblies from the days of the apostles, exhibited by some ecclesiastical writers, they are filled up by forgeries and later inventions. Thus diocesan bishops came in, whose offices are considered as corruptions or dishonest applications: as dictated by the necessities of the church, or of instances of worldly ambition’. ‘The Authentic and Acknowledged Standards of the Church of Rome’, J. Hannah D.D., 1844, p. 414 http://www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati_Leaks/post/Mythical_Vatican_predecessors/ Then, early in the 16th Century, a strange document appeared called the ‘Liberian Catalogue’ and it purported to record the lineage of popes ‘from St. Peter to Pope Liberius’ (366). However, in later times the Vatican admitted that that document was of ‘a suspicious nature and not deemed reliable’,* it being just another of hundreds of Vatican forgeries. Catholic historian, Bishop Lewis Du Pin (d. c. 1725), added; ‘Unfortunately, the Liberian Catalogue is not genuine’** and by such false documents does the Vatican claim ‘apostolic succession’. However, Erasmus got it right when he frankly admitted, ‘Succession itself is imaginary’,***

• ‘Annales Ecclesiastici’, Folio xi, Antwerp, 1597, Cardinal Caesar Baronius
  • ‘De Antiqua Ecclesiae Disciplina’, Bishop Lewis Du Pin (Folio, Paris, 1686)
    • ‘Erasmus’, Desid, in Nov. Test. Annotations, Fol. Basil, 1542

http://www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati_Leaks/post/Mythical_Vatican_predecessors/Easeltine (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The catalogue is part (a small part) of the Chronography of 354. The idea that this is a "Vatican forgery" runs against all modern scholarship (and there's a lot of that). That it was a compilation made in 354, reflecting the understanding current then, and not in fact an accurate reflection of the very early church, is not controversial. I suggest you look at scholarship more recent than Erasmus, 1686, 1725 or 1844. The article could do with some changes, but not using these sources. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Louis Ellies Dupin was never a priest or bishop. He was a Gallican anti-Papist who was censured and thrown out of the University of Paris. Also, the quote from Erasmus is fraudulent, he died in 1536, and one may not pull a short line "succession itself is imaginary" - without its context, and without accurate reference.