How “Pope Liberius” (352 AD – 366 AD) adopted, but “did not teach ex cathedra”, Arianism, thus rescuing “papal infallibility”

Liberius is the second most notorious “pope”, whose adoption of heresy Rome had to deal with while trying to wriggle out some form of “infallibility” (following Honorius, 625-638).

This question came in an email: “I wonder if you might point me to some scholarly materials on pope Liberius. I know that it is standard Protestant apologetic to argue against the papacy by pointing out that this pope succumbed to Arian pressure. Of course the standard Catholic reply is that those materials are forgeries. If you have some time would you mind recommending some sources?”

Johnann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger, who was a Roman Catholic historian prior to Vatican I (and who argued strenuously against “Infallibility”), described it this way:

Why is Roman Catholicism Respected Today?

I’ve been aware of these kinds of incidents for a long time. But seeing them in one place, as they are shown here, really presses home the corruption of the whole Roman Catholic system. The history here is valid – by trusted names like Philip Schaff, Williston Walker, and J.N.D. Kelly.

Roman Catholic Apologists will claim, “well, infallibility doesn’t mean impeccability”, meaning, there will still be sinners in an imperfect “Church”. We don’t deny that all men are sinners; but the Roman Catholic authorities portrayed here were not merely imperfect – they were so bad, that some of them make modern day Islamists look like mischievous Sunday School students by comparison.

I invite you to watch for a few minutes and understand how the Roman Papacy has conducted itself at many times throughout history. Again, Roman Catholic Apologists will suggest that these men contributed nothing to “the deposit of faith” – at best, that’s a concession that they were mere placeholders in an “unbroken succession” of popes. But at worst, these things verify what Jesus said: “a tree is known by its fruit (Matthew 12:33)”. This is the fruit of Roman Catholicism in its full, rotten, smelly aroma of death.

HT: Sam Shamoun

The Birth of the Church of England

One of the tasks I have set for myself, sort of a longer-term goal, is to tell the story of, and more specifically, the need for the Protestant Reformation.

That will of course involve looking at all types of “traditions”—to be distinguished from the “Tradition” of the Roman Catholic Church (their “living voice” not only makes Scripture into a was nose, but it makes the history of the church into a wax nose as well).

Traditional Anglicans believe that Christianity existed as early as the middle of the first century (perhaps some were Christians from as early as Pentecost). Whether or not that’s the case, there were churches in England as early as the middle of the second century.

Saint Alban, who was killed in 304 AD, is believed to be the first English Christian martyr, and the British church was represented at the Council of Arles in 314.

Some time later, the Anglo Saxons conquered England. Schaff notes, “Christianity was nearly extirpated in Britain”. It was re-introduced some time later through a missionary effort by Pope Gregory I. Here is Schaff’s account: