Was Athanasius Catholic?

[p90]

JPrejean:

The common Catholic view that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be proved from the Scriptures is based on formal insufficiency, not material insufficiency.

The challenge I have received and seen given to other Protestants from Catholics on many occasions is to demonstrate from the Scriptures alone that the Trinity is true. Even though a presentation can be given, they state it is impossible, and that we needed the information and material in infallible councils to lay down the truth of the Trinity.

We can’t say for sure what Athanasius means by the sufficiency of Scripture, because he doesn’t say, and we can’t ask him…we must objectively determine what a formally sufficient proof would look like (viz., what characteristics it would have), and then determine whether Athanasius’s argument has those characteristics, which in turn allows us to infer what his underlying belief about Scriptural sufficiency was.

How are we to “objectively determine what a formally sufficient proof would look like”? What is the “formally sufficient proof” and what evidence leads us to believe that Athanasius is arguing in that mind set?

Thus, that argument neither proves your case nor rebuts the counter-explanation that Athanasius meant material sufficiency…Moreover, you’ve hypothesized another occurrence (i.e., that his hermeneutical rule was derived from the text itself) for which we have no evidence, which in essence just repeats the claim that the evidence is insufficient.

You’re the one arguing that Athanasius’ dependence upon a traditional understanding of Scripture is what negates formal sufficiency and are using that to debunk my argument from the original quote. The evidence so far is insufficient to negate formal sufficiency; unless you can demonstrate that Athanasius, from his perspective, found that the traditional understanding was absolutely necessary to forward his ideas, the evidence for your argument is inconclusive.

~Matt

 

[p90]

itsjustdave1988:

What other “denominations” were there during Athanasius’ day?

How are you defining “denominations”? There were divisions of different types in the early church.

The 1st century bishop of Anitoch, St. Ignatius (AD 50 - 110)

What does Ignatius have to do with Athanasius’ beliefs?

That the Roman Pontiff had primacy of honor and jurisdiction in Athanasius’ day is shown by a letter from Pope Liberius, preserved by Athanasius…

If you want to show that Athanasius believed in your denomination’s view of the Papacy, it requires more than just citing a letter on the topic that he preserved.

~Matt

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

The challenge I have received and seen given to other Protestants from Catholics on many occasions is to demonstrate from the Scriptures alone that the Trinity is true. Even though a presentation can be given, they state it is impossible, and that we needed the information and material in infallible councils to lay down the truth of the Trinity.

Again, whether or not any particular doctrine can be proven, definitively, from Scripture alone is a matter of opinion, not itself Church doctrine. 2000 years experience of Catholics dealing with so many heretics who have denied Jesus’ divinity on Scriptural grounds, and refuting and/or calling into question every orthodox interpretation of Scripture have led most of us to believe that “Scripture Alone” is not formally sufficient to prove this dogma, since Scriptural interpretation is so malleable.

That having been said, it’s clear that Athanasius himself understood that Scripture was so misinterpretable by heretics, and when the heretics did proceed to interpret Scripture heretically, Athanasius insisted that their interpretation was contrary to he interpretation recevied by the Church (from the Apostles, through the early Church Fathers).

There’s nothing even remotely un-Catholic about this.

Note again, all, how the Protestants have again refused to address my last posts on this issue, acting as if they don’t exist.

And yes, p90, Athanasius’s preservation of a letter, especially one that he quotes approvingly from, is very much indicative of the man’s own belief, as well as the beliefs of the Church of his time period.

I suppose one would be hard-pressed to find a document even from Pope John Paul II saying something like “Sola Scriptura is false.” or “Ecumenical Councils are infallible.” But people one thousand years from now will know that the Pope believed these things, because they were the beliefs of the Catholic Church during the time in which he lived. This goes for just about any historical personage who lives in any time period, no matter what his religion. Unless we have explicit reason to believe otherwise, we can assume that his beliefs are in accord with those of his co-religionists. This is just common sense.

And besides, I’ve already cited the Canons of the Synod of Sardica, which Athanasius himself attended and approved.

So, Athanasius believed papal primacy, and did hold a Catholic view of Scripture, Tradition, and the authority of an Ecumenical Council.

If you do not believe he was Catholic, or Protestant, then pray tell, what religion was he?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

How are you defining “denominations”? There were divisions of different types in the early church.

I use Webster’s definition of the word “denomination" as "a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body”. With Webster’s definition, there was one denomination within the Catholic Church, just as there is today.

St. Ignatius bears great testimony as a first century bishop of Antioch affirming the Catholic Church of the first century onwards was indeed presided over by the Church of Rome, just as it is today. St. Athanansius also recognized without refute the primacy of honor and jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, something denied by all non-Catholics today. Thus, the Church “denomination” that St. Athanasius belonged to was the Catholic Church which continues to assert primacy of honor and jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and remains in communion with him.

How many denominations today remain in communion with the Roman Pontiff and accept the Roman Pontiff’s primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church? That be one by my count. The one that is presided by Pope John Paul II.

If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means offer it up. So far, I seen nothing supporting any contrary claim.

 

[JPrejean]

p90:
I’m afraid we may have to call it quits after this post, because we don’t seem to be making any headway. In fact, we seem to be having two different conversations. Regarding the other challenges you may have received, I have not seen the challenges, and regardless, that wasn’t the challenge originally presented in the thread. Turning back to the original challenge:

p90:

How are we to “objectively determine what a formally sufficient proof would look like”?

That’s relatively trivial from the definition of formal sufficiency (as opposed to material sufficiency). His argument must rely solely on the text of Scripture itself and the principles of sound hermeneutics from the historical-grammatical method. If he goes beyond that, then he hasn’t demonstrated formal sufficiency, because formal sufficiency is the hypothesis that the doctrine can be shown using only those principles (viz., if you rely on even one extra source in any way, the argument fails).

What is the “formally sufficient proof” and what evidence leads us to believe that Athanasius is arguing in that mind set?

As I said above, the evidence for Athanasius arguing in that mindset would be that he makes an argument that would be sufficient to be convincing from that mindset. Thus, if by “sufficiency” he means “formal sufficiency,” then his argument to demonstrate the sufficiency of Scripture would have to be sufficient to show formal sufficiency. Otherwise, he hasn’t proved what he set out to prove.

p90:

You’re the one arguing that Athanasius’ dependence upon a traditional understanding of Scripture is what negates formal sufficiency and are using that to debunk my argument from the original quote.

But you never actually made an argument from the original quote; you just asserted that Athanasius meant “formal sufficiency.” I have provided textual evidence for why I considered him to mean material and not formal sufficiency. Your response thus far has been to say “well, it’s inconclusive; he might mean formal sufficiency.” But that doesn’t answer the original question of the thread, which queries about the reason that you think Athanasius is not Catholic. The fact that we can’t convince you to change your position has nothing to with your reason for having the position in the first place.

p90:

The evidence so far is insufficient to negate formal sufficiency; unless you can demonstrate that Athanasius, from his perspective, found that the traditional understanding was absolutely necessary to forward his ideas, the evidence for your argument is inconclusive.

You’ve missed the point entirely. We don’t need to present any evidence to negate formal sufficiency, because you haven’t presented any evidence for formal sufficiency. You have to prove (rather than assert) why “sufficiency” in that quote means formal sufficiency; otherwise, you can’t rightly say that you have a reason for your belief. The way that you would show this would be to show that his argument for sufficiency is an argument for formal sufficiency. But for that to be the case, you would have to show that his argument for sufficiency relied only on the sources permitted by formal sufficiency. Otherwise, the evidence would be inconclusive, which would again leave you with no reason for your position.

It may well be your opinion that Athanasius is not Catholic, but you haven’t yet provided a reason for it, and that is your obligation if you are going to make claims like “No Catholic would say this.” Unless you’re going to take up that burden, I don’t quite see how you’re doing anything than stating your opinion, which doesn’t seem particularly useful to discuss.

 

[PhilVaz]

Okay, some of my favorite (and missing from the Webster/King, White, Svendsen, and Mathison volumes on sola scriptura) quotes of Protestant historians:

THUS SAITH PROTESTANT HISTORIANS

“The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; and the oral tradition or living faith of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects – together form the one infallible source and rule of faith…the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the key to the true interpretation of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 3, page 606)

“If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained…an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness.” …

“Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] ‘guard the deposit’, i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and correctly interpreted in the Church’s unerring tradition.” (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, page 47-48, 51)

"Together with the proper interpretation of the Old Testament and the proper canon of the New, this tradition of the church was a decisive criterion of apostolic continuity for the determination of doctrine in the church catholic. Clearly it is an anachronism to superimpose upon the discussions of the second and third centuries categories derived from the controversies over the relation of Scripture and tradition in the sixteenth century, for ‘in the ante-Nicene Church…there was no notion of sola scriptura, but neither was there a doctrine of traditio sola.’…

“So palpable was this apostolic tradition that even if the apostles had not left behind the Scriptures to serve as normative evidence of their doctrine, the church would still be in a position to follow ‘the structure of the tradition which they handed on to those to whom they committed the church.’ This was, in fact, what the church was doing in those barbarian territories where believers did not have access to the written deposit, but still carefully guarded the ancient tradition of the apostles, summarized in the creed – or, at least, in a very creedlike statement of the content of apostolic tradition…The term ‘rule of faith’ or ‘rule of truth’ did not always refer to such creeds and confessions, and seems sometimes to have meant the ‘tradition,’ sometimes the Scriptures, sometimes the message of the gospel.” (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, volume 1, page 115-117)

These books I own, or looked up all by myself many years ago.

Phil P

 

[p90]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Note again, all, how the Protestants have again refused to address my last posts on this issue, acting as if they don’t exist.

How many of “the Protestants” are actively involved in this thread or even following it? Also, the reason I didn’t respond to the rest of your post is because you were arguing against the proposition that Athanasius was a Protestant, which isn’t what any of us were proposing. Why should we spend our time interacting with a straw-man?

If you do not believe he was Catholic, or Protestant, then pray tell, what religion was he?

He was a Christian whose beliefs do not equate with any religious organization of today.

~Matt

 

[hlgomez]

He was a Christian whose beliefs do not equate with any religious organization of today.

~Matt

C’mon, don’t be too hard to accept the reality that he is a catholic.

Pio

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Also, the reason I didn’t respond to the rest of your post is because you were arguing against the proposition that Athanasius was a Protestant, which isn’t what any of us were proposing. Why should we spend our time interacting with a straw-man?

You obviously have not been reading my posts. So far as I’m concerned, this discussion is over.

He was a Christian whose beliefs do not equate with any religious organization of today.

Saint Athanasius 1) recognized Papal primacy over the Church, 2) recognized the authority of Ecumenical Councils, 3) recognized the validity and authority of Church Tradition, 4) taught that Mary was Mother of God, 5) taught that Mary was ever-virgin, 6) taught the real Pressence of Christ in the Eucharist, 7) taught that one could lose salvation by commiting mortal sin, etc.

[Numbers 1 thru 3 have been thoroughly documented in this thread. Unforutnately, none of the Protestants have really bothered to read this documentation, much less address it.]

Saint Athanasius’s co-religionists were certainly all Catholic, and recognized him as one of their own.

The last word on this has to go to the Protestant scholar J. N. D. Kelly [The citation is from Dave Armstrong’s website, which has already been linked to above.], when he writes:

So Athanasius, disputing with the Arians, claimed that his own doctrine had been handed down from father to father, whereas they could not produce a single respectable witness to theirs . . .

. . . the ancient idea that the Church alone, in virtue of being the home of the Spirit and having preserved the authentic apostolic testimony in her rule of faith, liturgical action and general witness, possesses the indispensable key to Scripture, continued to operate as powerfully as in the days of Irenaeus and Tertullian . . . Athanasius himself, after dwelling on the entire adequacy of Scripture, went on to emphasize the desirability of having sound teachers to expound it. Against the Arians he flung the charge that they would never have made shipwreck of the faith had they held fast as a sheet-anchor to the . . . Church’s peculiar and traditionally handed down grasp of the purport of revelation. Hilary insisted that only those who accept the Church’s teaching can comprehend what the Bible is getting at. According to Augustine, its doubtful or ambiguous passages need to be cleared up by ‘the rule of faith’; it was, moreover, the authority of the Church alone which in his eyes guaranteed its veracity.

It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness.

{Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: HarperCollins, revised edition, 1978, 45, 47-48}

 

[itsjustdave1988]

p90,

He was a Christian whose beliefs do not equate with any religious organization of today.

Now this is just absurd.

The single US “legal and administrative body” has a distinct existence, handing it’s governmental authority from successor to successor. Would you equally label Thomas Jefferson as not being an American merely because his particular form of republicanism is virtually non-existent in the US today?

St. Athanasius was a member of an ecclesiastical body called the Catholic Church. The “denomination” according to Webster’s definition of the word, that is, the “religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body” was that of the Catholic Church.

Did today’s Catholic Church, as a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body exist in Athanasius’ day? Most certainly, as even asserted by non-Catholic historians, many of which are prominent Protestant Church historians. Such non-Catholic historians assert that Pope Liberius was a pope of the same “denomination” referred to still today as the Catholic Church.

What other denomination (in Webster’s use of the term) did Athanasius belong to? Protestant church historians, such as J.N.D. Kelly, list Pope Liberius among the popes of the same Catholic Church that we list him among. Liberius is likewise listed among the APOSTOLICAL MEN that Athanasius lists and says that these APOSTOLICAL MEN cannot teach fraudulently. Athanasius also asserted that if the Arians could support their doctrines by quoting from what these APOSTOLICAL MEN taught, then there would be no charge of heresy.

St. Athanasius:

“Had these expositions of theirs [the Arians] proceeded from the orthodox, from such as … Liberius of Rome… there would then have been nothing to suspect in their statements, for the character of APOSTOLICAL MEN is sincere and INCAPABLE OF FRAUD”
Ad Episcopos 8(A.D. 372),in NPNF2,IV:227

In other words, what determined the orthodox interpretation of Scripture was the ecclesiastical sense held by THESE APOSTOLICAL MEN. The determining factor for heresy is whether or not these APOSTOLICAL MEN also taught the doctrine. Don’t you find that odd for a non-Catholic to assert?

St. Athanasius was both historically and doctrinally Catholic. Your claims to the contrary are obviously not based upon facts, but on polemics.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

What I would like to know is what Athanasian doctrine has been rejected by the Catholic Church?

 

[p90]

JPrejean:

As I said above, the evidence for Athanasius arguing in that mindset would be that he makes an argument that would be sufficient to be convincing from that mindset. Thus, if by “sufficiency” he means “formal sufficiency,” then his argument to demonstrate the sufficiency of Scripture would have to be sufficient to show formal sufficiency. Otherwise, he hasn’t proved what he set out to prove.

You aren’t answering the questions I asked in any detail. I’m not asking about the principle behind your argument, but for solid evidence for your argument.

But for that to be the case, you would have to show that his argument for sufficiency relied only on the sources permitted by formal sufficiency.

We can keep this much more simple and on topic. I’ve repeatedly argued that the issue is whether or not Athanasius thought a council was necessary to relate the truth of the Trinity, not whether or not he held to the formal sufficiency of the Scriptures. (The segway into Sola Scriptura was, as I stated before, my fault; I was trying to defend the correct interpretation of the doctrine instead of sticking onto the topic of Athanasius.) That is what is necessary to discuss.

The short of it all is that, before this thread, I was not aware of any Catholics arguing that we didn’t need councils to relate the truth of the Trinity. However, another in this thread has said it is a matter of opinion and not of official church teaching whether or not something can be proven from the Scriptures alone. But another challenged me to prove an aspect of the Trinity from Scripture alone. Which position is the correct one? We can finish this conversation relatively easily if you can present to me the official position of the Catholic Church on this matter. If it turns out I am mistaken, I will have to view the words of Catholic apologists on this matter more critically in regards to representing the true Catholic position.

~Matt

 

[p90]

DominvsVobiscvm:

You obviously have not been reading my posts. So far as I’m concerned, this discussion is over.

You wrote:

Does any Protestant still wish to seriously maintain that Athanasius was a Protestant?

When I criticized you for misrepresenting any Protestant’s position in this thread, you now say that “this discussion is over.” I have been reading what you’ve been posting.

~Matt

 

[p90]

itsjustdave1988:

Would you equally label Thomas Jefferson as not being an American merely because his particular form of republicanism is virtually non-existent in the US today?

The argument from analogy assumes that Athanasius is a member of your denomination and proceeds from there.

Did today’s Catholic Church, as a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body exist in Athanasius’ day? Most certainly, as even asserted by non-Catholic historians, many of which are prominent Protestant Church historians. Such non-Catholic historians assert that Pope Liberius was a pope of the same “denomination” referred to still today as the Catholic Church.

Let us see you demonstrate this then, that “prominent Protestant Church historians” believe the early church in Athanasius’ day was a “single legal and administrative body” with Pope Liberius at the head.

~Matt

 

[JPrejean]

p90:

I’m not asking about the principle behind your argument, but for solid evidence for your argument.

Don’t you understand that I am not even making an argument? You are the one who has been asked to give a reason that Athanasius was not Catholic, and you still haven’t. You simply said “This quote proves Athanasius was not Catholic,” but you haven’t provided an argument for why that quote proves that Athanasius is not Catholic.

p90:

I’ve repeatedly argued that the issue is whether or not Athanasius thought a council was necessary to relate the truth of the Trinity, not whether or not he held to the formal sufficiency of the Scriptures.

That’s where you got sidetracked then. The original question was whether he was Catholic, not whether he thought a council was necessary. There is no dogma on whether councils are or are not necessary to prove the Trinity, and Athanasius (like many other Catholics) does not think that they are necessary.

p90:

The short of it all is that, before this thread, I was not aware of any Catholics arguing that we didn’t need councils to relate the truth of the Trinity. However, another in this thread has said it is a matter of opinion and not of official church teaching whether or not something can be proven from the Scriptures alone.

Good, you have learned something new about Catholics. The only thing that Catholics argue is that you cannot conclusively show every true dogma from Scripture. There are probably even some Catholics who think that the Trinity can be proved from the words of Scripture and sound interpretive principles without anything else.

p90:

But another challenged me to prove an aspect of the Trinity from Scripture alone.

That challenge has to do with your beliefs, not ours. You, as a Protestant, are required to believe that Scripture alone can be used to prove every essential doctrine. Thus, you should be able to show such a proof for any doctrine that you believe. The reason people brought it up is that you seem to be implying that Athanasius presents a sola scriptura (formally sufficient) argument for the Trinity from Scripture. I don’t believe the evidence supports that theory.

p90:

Which position is the correct one? We can finish this conversation relatively easily if you can present to me the official position of the Catholic Church on this matter.

The correct position is that there isn’t a correct position. Catholics can believe whatever they want about whether the Trinity is provable from Scripture.

p90:

If it turns out I am mistaken, I will have to view the words of Catholic apologists on this matter more critically in regards to representing the true Catholic position.

Careful. Catholics haven’t taken any official position or made any claims on whether the Trinity is provable from Scripture, but Protestants have. In other words, you have a burden that we don’t have. If you prove your case, you haven’t hurt us any, but if you fail to prove it, then Protestantism is false. It is perfectly OK for the Catholic apologist to say “Prove it” to you without having to present any proof in response.

p90:

Let us see you demonstrate this then, that “prominent Protestant Church historians” believe the early church in Athanasius’ day was a “single legal and administrative body” with Pope Liberius at the head.

Catholics don’t make the claim that the Church was a single legal and administrative body at the time, so why should we have to demonstrate it?

 

[p90]

-sorry, I don’t have time to proof this

JPrejean:

Don’t you understand that I am not even making an argument? You are the one who has been asked to give a reason that Athanasius was not Catholic, and you still haven’t.

I was referring to your earlier posts where you made a counter argument against formal sufficiency. For example, you wrote earlier:

Athanasius makes arguments from Psalms that are traditionally understood to be Messianic in nature. Without that traditional understanding, there is no warrant in the text itself for assuming that they should even be relevant to other New Testament texts that Athanasius interprets. In summary, the case that Athanasius is making looks very little like the case that a sola scriptura advocate would make

I was trying to get you to answer some of the questions and problems I raised with your counter argument.

You simply said “This quote proves Athanasius was not Catholic,” but you haven’t provided an argument for why that quote proves that Athanasius is not Catholic.

My idea of what a major Catholic tenant was is now shown to be something a Catholic doesn’t have to believe.

The correct position is that there isn’t a correct position. Catholics can believe whatever they want about whether the Trinity is provable from Scripture.

Then I have learned not to assume to much from those who argue that councils are necessary.

Catholics don’t make the claim that the Church was a single legal and administrative body at the time, so why should we have to demonstrate it?

I wasn’t responding to your claims. Another Catholic argued this.

~Matt

 

[JPrejean]

p90:

I was trying to get you to answer some of the questions and problems I raised with your counter argument.

Ah, I was misled about what you were arguing (as you mentioned, there was some derailment). I thought that you were arguing that St. Athanasius had presented a formally sufficient proof for the Trinity. Instead, you were merely arguing that one didn’t need to resort to councils, a point on which we agree. Fair enough.

p90:

My idea of what a major Catholic tenant was is now shown to be something a Catholic doesn’t have to believe.

Sorry about that. I think we all try to be careful about getting things right, but sometimes, we make mistakes. Also, people in these discussions get defensive and focus too much on winning and not enough on helping the other guy to understand. When people get into that “win at all costs” mentality, they can get careless.

Anyway, thank you for being so civil, and I hope the discussion was helpful.

Grace and peace to you.
– JP

 

[itsjustdave1988]

My assertion (not your paraphrase of my assertion), is:

Did today’s Catholic Church, as a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body exist in Athanasius’ day? Most certainly, as even asserted by non-Catholic historians, many of which are prominent Protestant Church historians. Such non-Catholic historians assert that Pope Liberius was a pope of the same “denomination” referred to still today as the Catholic Church.

It is supported by the following:

Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly in his book, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes says, “The Papacy is the oldest of all Western institutions with an unbroken existence of almost 2000 years.” J.N.D. Kelly lists Pope Liberius as among those popes holding the office of this 2000 year old institution. Pope John Paul II being the last of these office holders. This is what JND Kelly states regarding the papacy during the Arian controversy…

"‘The student tracing the history of the times, particularly the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fufillment of the divine plan’ (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pg 417)

And as Athanasius himself says of the Council of Sardica: “the great Council” (Defense Against the Arians 1) and “the Holy Synod” (Letter to the People of Antioch 5), we should take note of what the council, in fact, affirmed:

So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their HEAD, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle (Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342), as cited by prominent historian James T. Shotwell and Louise Ropes Loomis The See of Peter (New York:Columbia,1927),pp.527-528.)

Protestant author J. Leslie Dunstan, in his book Protestantism states:

Protestantism is one of the three main divisions of the universal Christian Church, which together with the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches make up one world-wide religion. Protestantism is the most recent of the developments within Christianity, having a relatively short history of slightly more than four centuries; the other two branches of the faith have histories going back to the earliest days of the Christian era. Moreover, compared to the unity which characterizes those other branches, Protestantism is divided within itself among hundreds of separate organizations, some of which deny all relationship to others. The many denominations and sects have differing beliefs and carry on a variety of practices, which give them the appearance of being distinct from one another. (p. 9)

Another non-Catholic source, the Columbia Encyclopedia, states:

After Constantius died, Liberius openly avowed his orthodox position and reasserted the primacy of Rome as arbiter in matters of faith. (The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition., 2003, Columbia University Press, “Liberius”)

Another non-Catholic source, *The Encyclopedia of World History, *also lists Liberius among the popes of the Catholic Church, the same source listing John Paul II as pope. [cf. Appendix VI of The Encyclopedia of World History, Sixth edition, Peter N. Stearns, general editor, 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company]

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Also as asserted in the Catholic Church of Athanasius’ day, by a fellow bishop and contemporary of Athanasius:

“You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter,sat … in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one*.*” (Optatus of Mileve,The Schism of Donatists,2:2-3 (c.A.D. 367),in GCC,55)

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Who’s denying that Liberius was ever Pope? The anti-pope of the time was Felix, not Liberius.

Interesting to note, but both are actually comemmorated as Saints by the Catholic Church, but we can discuss this in another thread . . .