EA_Man and Shibboleth, one Father at a time. OK, you claim St. Athanasius affirmed sola scriptura (Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith) with the statements about “sufficiency” (e.g. De Synodis 6, Contra Gentes 1). OK, this does give a high place to Scripture – however Athanasius wouldn’t dare say Scripture should be interpreted apart from the tradition and orthodox understanding of the Catholic Church.
To wit more Athanasius:
“Had Christ’s enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and
recognised the ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the faith, they would not have made shipwreck of the faith, nor been so shameless as to resist those who would fain recover them from their fall, and to deem those as enemies who are admonishing them to be religious.” (Discourses Against the Arians 3.58)
“Now what has been briefly said above may suffice to shew their misunderstanding of the passages they then alleged; and that of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation, we may easily see,
if we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ’s enemies, being ignorant of this ]
scope, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think.” (Discourses Against the Arians 3.28)
“…in the fresh arrogance of irreligion, and in dizziness about the truth, are full set upon accusing the Council, let them tell us
what are the sort of Scriptures from which they have learned, or who is the Saint [Saint = orthodox saint or Father] by whom they have been taught, that they have heaped together the phrases, ‘out of nothing,’ and ‘He was not before His generation,’ and ‘once. He was not,’ and ‘alterable,’ and ‘pre-existence,’ and ‘at the will;’ which are their fables in mockery of the Lord.” (De Decretis 18)
"…who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council, for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us.
For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies. (De Decretis 27)
"Therefore let them tell us,
from what teacher or by what tradition they derived these notions concerning the Saviour? “We have read,” they will say, “in the Proverbs, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways unto His works;’” this Eusebius and his fellows used to insist on, and you write me word, that the present men also, though overthrown and confuted by an abundance of arguments, still were putting about in every quarter this passage, and saying that the Son was one of the creatures, and reckoning Him with things originated. But they seem to me to have a wrong understanding of this passage also; for it has
a religious and very orthodox sense, which had they understood, they would not have blasphemed the Lord of glory. (De Decretis 13)
Commentary from Protestant historian Philip Schaff, et al from the Eerdmans edition of the Fathers:
“Tradition [according to Athanasius] is recognised as authoritative in two ways: (1) Negatively, in the sense that
doctrines which are novel are prima facie condemned by the very fact (de Decr. 7, note 2, ib. 18, Orat. i. 8, 10, ii. 34, 40, de Syn. 3, 6, 7, and Letter 59, §3); and (2) positively, as
furnishing a guide to the sense of Scripture (see references in note on Orat. iii. 58, end of ch. xxix.). In other words,
tradition with Athanasius is a formal, not a material,
source of doctrine.”
More here
St. Athanasius on Scripture and Tradition
Please, do one Father at a time, and read them thoroughly. Athanasius certainly did not accept “sola scriptura” unless “sola scriptura” means
a person should not interpret Scripture apart from the tradition, authority, and understanding of the Catholic Church. That is St. Athanasius full teaching.
I challenge both Shibboleth and EA_Man to read ALL of St. Athanasius, not just the selected portions from the Webster/King volumes, or wherever you get your quotations.
Phil P
I was challenged by a bunch of anti-Catholics before that tempted me to think something else about the Catholic Church…but with the Grace of Christ, I knew that was just a lie!
)