MARCELLINUS, Pope, Saint. — According to the *Catalogus Liberianus*, he succeeded Pope Caius on 10 July 296 and governed the Roman Church until 304. This is the only certain fact about his pontificate, since the two decretals attributed to him by Pseudo-Isidore are certainly spurious. On the other hand, unfavorable rumors circulated about M.’s conduct during Diocletian’s persecution, which were also collected in some writings and seem confirmed by the absence of his name in documents where it would be expected. It is therefore necessary to examine the various testimonies, both negative and positive, to judge the reliability of these rumors and the legitimacy of raising doubts.
The name of M. is omitted in the *Depositio Martyrum*, in the *Martyrologium Hieronymianum*, and in most papal catalogs from the 5th to the 12th centuries. It does appear in its proper place in the *Catalogus Liberianus* and in the *Depositio Episcoporum* under 16 January. However, since the *Martyrologium Hieronymianum* records the deposition of Pope Marcellus on that same day, some scholars suggest that the *Depositio Episcoporum* should read *Marcellus* rather than *Marcellinus*.
The Donatists repeatedly accused M. of weakness during the persecution: surrendering the Scriptures and offering incense to idols. This accusation, first leveled around 400 by Petilian, Bishop of Constantine, and repeated in the Donatist *Chronicon* of 427, was later taken up and expanded in the early 6th century in the Acts of the pseudo-Council of Sinuessa. These Acts narrate how, following M.’s fall—allegedly after offering incense to idols—300 bishops gathered at Sinuessa to judge him. M. initially denied the charge, then confessed his sin. Since the bishops refused to condemn the bishop of the first see, M. excommunicated and deposed himself. Further elaboration appears in the now-lost *Passio Marcellini*, which by around 530 had been incorporated into the *Liber Pontificalis*, which recounts how M. sacrificed to idols, later repented, and was consequently beheaded along with three other Christians; his body was buried in the Cemetery of Priscilla by the priest Marcellus.
Can these testimonies be taken as evidence that M. faltered during the persecution? It seems not. The Donatist accusation, which appears a century after the event, must be rejected outright, especially since the Donatists themselves omitted it at the Conference of Carthage in 411, and St. Augustine, who reports it, firmly rejected it as unproven. The *Liber Pontificalis* carries no weight in such matters. The Acts of the Council of Sinuessa are a clear forgery, fabricated in the early 6th century during the Laurentian schism to support the legitimate Pope Symmachus and to uphold the principle: “the first see is judged by none.” It is by no means certain that the *Depositio Episcoporum* should read *Marcellus* rather than *Marcellinus*. The omission of his name in the *Depositio Martyrum* can easily be explained by the assumption that he died a natural death—something Eusebius’ statement does not confirm but also does not deny: “Μαρκελλίνος... ὃν καὶ αὐτὸν διωγμός κατέλαβεν” (*Hist. eccl.*, VII, 32). The omission in many papal catalogs can be explained by the easy confusion of the two names and by the likelihood that there was never a Pope Marcellus (v.), so that M. was understood under the name of Marcellus. Finally, the omission in the *Martyrologium Hieronymianum* simply indicates that his cult was not widely propagated. It is certain, however, that M. was venerated at his tomb. Thus, the question of M.’s alleged fall has no foundation. Consequently, Caspar’s theory—that these omissions represent a “damnatio memoriae” akin to that used in the Empire—has no merit. Such a procedure was never practiced in the Church, since the legitimacy of bishops rested precisely on their succession and continuity. And while after the 4th century, under Byzantine influence, the expunging of a bishop’s name from liturgical diptychs became common in the East, his name was never erased from episcopal catalogs.