Was Athanasius Catholic?

[bbas_64]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Your out-of-context interpretation of this passage has been masterfully refuted.

In short, according to Saint Athanasius, Scripture is only sufficient when read in light of the Catholic Church’s Tradition.

Don’t forget that the Arians he fought against believed that they were teaching the Biblical doctrine, much like modern Jehovah’s Witnesses do.

Good Day, Dominvs

In short?? Where is it in the writings of Athanasius, in short can some times be misunderstood.

Source for this “” Scripture is only sufficient when read in light of the Catholic Church’s Tradition."

Athanasius -Against the Heathen (I:3) “the holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.”

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[rschermer2]

Maccabees:

Saint Athanasius was a pentacostal everybody knows that!

Actually, I think he was Four Square Full Gospel Baptist.

 

[rschermer2]

bbas 64:

Good Day, Dominvs

In short?? Where is it in the writings of Athanasius, in short can some times be misunderstood.

Source for this “” Scripture is only sufficient when read in light of the Catholic Church’s Tradition."

Athanasius -Against the Heathen (I:3) “the holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.”

Peace to u,

Bill

If you check out the link provided by Dominvs you would see how terribly you quote from Athansius is taken out of context. In fact if you read Athansius’ entire writing ‘Against the Heathen’ you would see that what Dominvs states ‘in short’ is so blindingly true its scary. St. Athanasius could be talking to Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and he could be talking to all Protestants today. He uses harsh words and pulls no punches. If a person was reading what he wrote without knowing the time in which it was written they could easily think that St. Athanasius was a modern day Bishop scolding his Fundamentalist brothers for their heresy.

God Bless,
RS

 

[bbas_64]

rschermer2:

If you check out the link provided by Dominvs you would see how terribly you quote from Athansius is taken out of context. In fact if you read Athansius’ entire writing ‘Against the Heathen’ you would see that what Dominvs states ‘in short’ is so blindingly true its scary. St. Athanasius could be talking to Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and he could be talking to all Protestants today. He uses harsh words and pulls no punches. If a person was reading what he wrote without knowing the time in which it was written they could easily think that St. Athanasius was a modern day Bishop scolding his Fundamentalist brothers for their heresy.

God Bless,
RS

Good Day, RS

I must say that is a novel approach to reading of Athanasius, can not find Scripture is only sufficient when read in light of the Catholic Church’s Tradition." in that work, I will admit have not read it all some day I will. Am I believe you view non- Roman Catholic believers as arian in their view with reguards to the trinity and Christ’s nauture?

Athanasius (297-373): For if ever God shall give back the churches (for we think He will) yet without such restoration of the churches the Faith is sufficient for us. And lest, speaking without the Scriptures, I should [seem to] speak too strongly, it is well to bring you to the testimony of Scriptures, for recollect that the Temple indeed was at Jerusalem; the Temple was not deserted, aliens had invaded it, whence also the Temple being at Jerusalem, those exiles went down to Babylon by the judgment of God, who was proving, or rather correcting them; while manifesting to them in their ignorance punishment [by means] of blood-thirsty enemies. And aliens indeed had held the Place, but knew not the Lord of the Place, while in that He neither gave answer nor spoke, they were deserted by the truth. NPNF2: Vol. IV, Letters of Athanasius, I. Festal Letters

Do non- Roman Catholics speak with out testimony of scriptures? Even if you agree or disagree with the fashsion in which some do so?

One has to stop and think how Athanasius would respond to claims of the current Roman teachers like this one:

Johann Adam Möhler: Catholic theologians teach with general concurrence, and quite in the spirit of the Church, that even a Scriptural proof in favour of a decree held to be infallible, is not itself infallible, but only the dogma as defined. Johann Adam Möhler, Symbolism: Exposition of the Doctorinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their Symbolical Writings, trans. James Burton Robertson (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1997), p. 296.

Given his view of Scripture:

“These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these.” (Festal Letter 39:6)

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[bbas_64]

rschermer2:

If you check out the link provided by Dominvs you would see how terribly you quote from Athansius is taken out of context. In fact if you read Athansius’ entire writing ‘Against the Heathen’ you would see that what Dominvs states ‘in short’ is so blindingly true its scary. St. Athanasius could be talking to Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and he could be talking to all Protestants today. He uses harsh words and pulls no punches. If a person was reading what he wrote without knowing the time in which it was written they could easily think that St. Athanasius was a modern day Bishop scolding his Fundamentalist brothers for their heresy.

God Bless,
RS

Good Day, RS

You raise an interesting question as you apply your reasoning out side of Rome which Athannasius, hardly ever did.

Again he transferred from Cappadocia to Milan one Auxentius48 , an intruder rather than a Christian, whom he commanded to stay there, after he had banished for his piety towards Christ Dionysius the Bishop of the place, a godly man. But this person was as yet even ignorant of the Latin language, and unskilful in everything except impiety. And now one George, a Cappadocian, who was contractor of stores49 at Constantinople, and having embezzled all monies that he received, was obliged to fly, he commanded to enter Alexandria with military pomp, and supported by the authority of the General. Next, finding one Epictetus50 a novice, a bold young man, he loved him51 , perceiving that he was ready for wickedness; and by his means he carries on his designs against those of the Bishops whom he desires to ruin. For he is prepared to do everything that the Emperor wishes; who accordingly availing himself of his assistance, has committed at Rome a strange act, but one truly resembling the malice of Antichrist. Having made preparations in the Palace instead of the Church, and caused some three of his own eunuchs to attend instead of the people, he then compelled three52 ill-conditioned spies53 (for one cannot call them Bishops), to ordain forsooth as Bishop one Felix54 , a man worthy of them, then in the Palace. For the people perceiving the iniquitous proceedings of the heretics would not allow them to enter the Churches55 , and withdrew themselves far from them.

I believe Felix was the Bishop of Rome, and did not garner favor with Athanasius nor did Liberious who kicked him out.

Peace to u,

 

[WBB]

bbas 64:

Good Day, RS

You raise an interesting question as you apply your reasoning out side of Rome which Athannasius, hardly ever did.

Again he transferred from Cappadocia to Milan one Auxentius48 , an intruder rather than a Christian, whom he commanded to stay there, after he had banished for his piety towards Christ Dionysius the Bishop of the place, a godly man. But this person was as yet even ignorant of the Latin language, and unskilful in everything except impiety. And now one George, a Cappadocian, who was contractor of stores49 at Constantinople, and having embezzled all monies that he received, was obliged to fly, he commanded to enter Alexandria with military pomp, and supported by the authority of the General. Next, finding one Epictetus50 a novice, a bold young man, he loved him51 , perceiving that he was ready for wickedness; and by his means he carries on his designs against those of the Bishops whom he desires to ruin. For he is prepared to do everything that the Emperor wishes; who accordingly availing himself of his assistance, has committed at Rome a strange act, but one truly resembling the malice of Antichrist. Having made preparations in the Palace instead of the Church, and caused some three of his own eunuchs to attend instead of the people, he then compelled three52 ill-conditioned spies53 (for one cannot call them Bishops), to ordain forsooth as Bishop one Felix54 , a man worthy of them, then in the Palace. For the people perceiving the iniquitous proceedings of the heretics would not allow them to enter the Churches55 , and withdrew themselves far from them.

I believe Felix was the Bishop of Rome, and did not garner favor with Athanasius nor did Liberious who kicked him out.

Peace to u,

#1) What are you quoting?

#2) Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Felix was imposed as bishop of Rome when Liberius was exiled. Felix was what we refer to as an anti-pope. Liberius was the true Bishop of Rome. Liberius was on the side of Athanasius against the Arians who had put Felix in place when Liberius was exiled.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St. Athanasius:

“[T]hat 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…”
[6] Orationes contra Arianos 3:28 (A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:409

St. Athanasius condemns the Arians for not using the ecclesiastical scope as a guide for interpreting Scripture. St. Athanasius continues his argument by stating that the Arians had become heterodox by ignoring the ecclesiastical rule. (from Joe Gallegos, cin.org/users/jgallegos/athans.htm, in his rebuttal to James White’s absurd assertions)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Furthermore, Athanasius also calls the Council of Nicea “sufficient” to refute Arianism…

what need is there of Councils, when the Nicene is sufficient, as against the Arian heresy, so against the rest, which it has condemned one and all by means of the sound faith?"
De Synodis 6(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:453

That Nicea was “sufficient” in Athanasius view does not mean apart from Scripture. Likewsie, Scripture is sufficient but not apart from the authority of the Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Doesn’t this sound Catholic?

St. Athanasius:

"The blessed Apostle approves of the Corinthians because, he says, ‘ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you’ (1 Cor. xi. 2); but they, as entertaining such views of their predecessors, will have the daring to say just the reverse to their flocks: ‘We praise you not for remembering your fathers, but rather we make much of you, when you hold not their traditions.’ "
De Synodis 14(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:453

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The importance of Catholic tradition as held by the successors to the apostles is emphasized by St. Athanasius when he states that if the Arian position was supported by Catholic Tradition, they would never had been suspected of heresy. Observe,

Had these expositions of theirs [the Arians] proceeded from the orthodox, from such as the great Confessor Hosius, and Maximinus of Gaul, or his successor, or from such as Philogonius and Eustathius, Bishops of the East, or Julius and Liberius of Rome, or Cyriacus of Moesia, or Pistus and Aristaeus of Greece, or Silvester and Protogenes of Dacia, or Leontius and Eupsychius of Cappadocia, or Caecilianus of Africa, or Eustorgius of Italy, or Capito of Sicily, or Macarius of Jerusalem, or Alexander of Constantinople, or Paederos of Heraclea, or those great Bishops Meletius, Basil, and Longianus, and the rest from Armenia and Pontus, or Lupus and Amphion from Cilicia, or James and the rest from Mesopotamia, or our own blessed Alexander, with others of the same opinions as these;–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

“We are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the Fathers hold this.”
Epis 59

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Gotta love this quote too … very applicable to Protestantism, in my opinion …

St. Athanasius:

“But after him (the devil) and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies,who indeed refer to the Scriptures, BUT DO NOT hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they DO NOT rightly KNOW THEM nor their power”
Festal Letter 2

‘…For they dissent from each other, and , whereas they have revolted from THEIR FATHERS, are not of ONE AND THE SAME MIND, but float about with various and discordant changes’
De Synodis 13

‘For it is right and meet thus to feel, and to maintain a good conscience toward the FATHERS, if we be not spurious children, but have received the TRADITIONS from them, and the LESSONS of religion at their hands’
De Synodis 47

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
‘Such then, as we confess and beleive, being the SENSE of the FATHERS…’
De Synodis 48

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
‘…but do you, remaining on the foundation of the Apostles, and holding fast the TRADITIONS of the FATHERS, pray that now at length all strife and rivalry may CEASE and the futile questions of the heretics may be condemned…’
De Synodis 54

‘But the sectaries, who have fallen away from the TEACHING of the CHURCH, and made SHIPWRECK concerning the faith’
C. Gentes 6

 

[Kevan]

rschermer2:

Actually, I think he was Four Square Full Gospel Baptist.

Fire-Baptized Holiness, I’d say.

 

[bbas_64]

#1) What are you quoting?

#2) Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Felix was imposed as bishop of Rome when Liberius was exiled. Felix was what we refer to as an anti-pope. Liberius was the true Bishop of Rome. Liberius was on the side of Athanasius against the Arians who had put Felix in place when Liberius was exiled.

Good Day, WBB1

Sorry here is the source, (History of the Arians, 8:75).

Where does Athanasius refer to Felix as an “anti-pope”? He clearly refers to Felix as the Bishop of Rome. What is anti pope anway? Imposed, hmmm… was he not elected by a council which from your point of view is infallible?

If Liberus was “on his side” why did refuse letters sent to him from Athanasius, then kick him out of the church?

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[bbas_64]

itsjustdave1988:

St. Athanasius:
St. Athanasius condemns the Arians for not using the ecclesiastical scope as a guide for interpreting Scripture. St. Athanasius continues his argument by stating that the Arians had become heterodox by ignoring the ecclesiastical rule. (from Joe Gallegos, cin.org/users/jgallegos/athans.htm, in his rebuttal to James White’s absurd assertions)

Good Day, Dave

I am not James White, so if Mr. Gallos would like to defend his views he is free to do so.
Peace to u,

Bill

 

[WBB]

bbas 64:

Good Day, WBB1

Sorry here is the source, (History of the Arians, 8:75).

Where does Athanasius refer to Felix as an “anti-pope”? He clearly refers to Felix as the Bishop of Rome. What is anti pope anway? Imposed, hmmm… was he not elected by a council which from your point of view is infallible?

If Liberus was “on his side” why did refuse letters sent to him from Athanasius, then kick him out of the church?

Peace to u,

Bill

It would appear that the letters excommunicating St. Athanasius were forged. Here is an article that explains about Pope Liberius.

newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

 

[bbas_64]

itsjustdave1988:

Furthermore, Athanasius also calls the Council of Nicea “sufficient” to refute Arianism…

That Nicea was “sufficient” in Athanasius view does not mean apart from Scripture. Likewsie, Scripture is sufficient but not apart from the authority of the Church.

Good Day, Dave

Seeing that Athanasius saw the truths of Nicea as clarly Biblical in Nature the council acted with in the realm of the Scripture that contains the truth.

It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son’s eternity; it is equally plain from what follows that the Arian phrases ‘He was not,’ and ‘before’ and ‘when,’ are in the same Scriptures predicated of creatures." (Four Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4:13)

“And this is usual with Scriptures, to express itsellf in inartificial and simple phrases.” (Four Discourses Against the Arians, 4:33)

He must have forgot “the authority of the Church” here or you have added it to his writting for the brevity of your point of view, not very nice to (name removed by moderator)ine the historical content of what was written.:nope:

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[bbas_64]

itsjustdave1988:

Gotta love this quote too … very applicable to Protestantism, in my opinion …

“”“But after him (the devil) and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies,who indeed refer to the Scriptures, BUT DO NOT hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they DO NOT rightly KNOW THEM nor their power”
Festal Letter 2

‘…For they dissent from each other, and , whereas they have revolted from THEIR FATHERS, are not of ONE AND THE SAME MIND, but float about with various and discordant changes’
De Synodis 13

‘For it is right and meet thus to feel, and to maintain a good conscience toward the FATHERS, if we be not spurious children, but have received the TRADITIONS from them, and the LESSONS of religion at their hands’
De Synodis 47

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
‘Such then, as we confess and beleive, being the SENSE of the FATHERS…’
De Synodis 48

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
‘…but do you, remaining on the foundation of the Apostles, and holding fast the TRADITIONS of the FATHERS, pray that now at length all strife and rivalry may CEASE and the futile questions of the heretics may be condemned…’
De Synodis 54

‘But the sectaries, who have fallen away from the TEACHING of the CHURCH, and made SHIPWRECK concerning the faith’
C. Gentes 6""

St. Athanasius:

Good Day, Dave

Sort of sounds like the way the Supreme court handles the historical context of the constitution.

There is a word for such handling of written documents that way though it exscapes me right now, Lord knows I to was quilty of it may times and was corrected by a history major.

Can some one HELP me with the word I need.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Funny that no one has even bothered to respond to the quotes I posted from the Council of Sardica, affirming papal primacy over the Church.

If you would like to explain the context of the quote in such a way that Athanasius’ words become something a faithful Catholic could say, present your argument for interaction.

ITSJUSTDAVE1988 has done this for me.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Regarding Saint Athanasius’s “excommunication”:

Liberius only signed the excommunication after being violently treated by imperial jailors and threatened with death. Thus, it was made under duress, and wasn’t even valid to begin with. Saint Athanasius himself recognized this. Here’s what the great Saint writes in his Historia Arianorum:

Now it had been better if from the first Constantius had never become connected with this heresy at all; or being connected with it if he had not yielded so much to those impious men; or having yielded to them, if he had stood by them only thus far, so that judgment might come upon them all for these atrocities alone. But as it would seem, like madmen, having fixed themselves in the bonds of impiety, they are drawing down upon their own heads a more severe judgment. **Thus from the first they spared not even Liberius, Bishop of Rome, but extended their fury even to those parts; they respected not his bishopric, because it was an Apostolical throne; they felt no reverence for Rome, because she is the Metropolis of Romania; they remembered not that formerly in their letters they had spoken of her Bishops as Apostolical men. But confounding all things together, they at once forgot everything, and cared only to shew their zeal in behalf of impiety. When they perceived that he was an orthodox man and hated the Arian heresy, and earnestly endeavoured to persuade all persons to renounce and withdraw from it these impious men reasoned thus with themselves: ‘If we can persuade Liberius, we shall soon prevail over all.’ ** Accordingly they accused him falsely before the Emperor; and he, expecting easily to draw over all men to his side by means of Liberius, writes to him, and sends a certain eunuch called Eusebius with letters and offerings, to cajole him with the presents, and to threaten him with the letters.

. . .

Who that shall hear what they did in the course of these proceedings will not think them to be anything rather than Christians? When Liberius sent Eutropius, a Presbyter, and Hilarius, a Deacon, with letters to the Emperor, at the time that LuciFer and his fellows made their confession, they banished the Presbyter on the spot, and after stripping Hilarius the Deacon and scourging him on the back, they banished him too, clamouring at him, ‘Why didst thou not resist Liberius instead of being the bearer of letters from him.’ Ursacius and Valens, with the eunuchs who sided with them, were the authors of this outrage. The Deacon, while he was being scourged, praised the Lord, remembering His words, ‘I gave My back to the smiters;’ but they while they scourged him laughed and mocked him, feeling no shame that they were insulting a Levitt. Indeed they acted but consistently in laughing while he continued to praise God; for it is the part of Christians to endure stripes, but to scourge Christians is the outrage of a Pilate or a Caiaphas. Thus they endeavoured at the first to corrupt the Church of the Romans, wishing to introduce impiety into it as well i as others. But Liberius after he had been gin banishment two years gave way, and from fear of threatened death subscribed. Yet even this only shews their violent conduct, and the hatred of Liberius against the heresy, and his support of Athanasius, so long as he was suffered to exercise a free choice. For that which men are forced by torture to do contrary to their first judgment, ought not to be considered the willing deed of those who are in fear, but rather of their tormentors. They however attempted everything in support of their heresy, while the people in every Church, preserving the faith which they had learnt, waited for the return of their teachers, and condemned the Antichristian heresy, and all avoid it, as they would a serpent.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

About a thousand years later, under very similar conditions of duress, Saint Joan of Arc herself signed a retraction of her divine mission, only to retract that when she was once again free from compulsion. I suppose she was a Protestant, too?

It also says a lot that, unlike the Latin Church, the Eastern Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) have always celebrated Saint Liberius with a liturgical feast day. The Byzantines celebrate him on August 27.

Here’s what’s really interesting. The Copts, (Catholic and Oriental Orthodox), those Egyptian Christians who had Saint Athanasius for their Patriarch, celebrate Saint Liberius on September 9. Here’s what the Coptic Synaxarion says about Liberius:

On this day, St. Leparius (Liberius), Bishop of Rome, departed. He was ordained during the reign of Emperor Constance, the son of Constantine. When Athanasius, Pope of Alexandria, and Paul, Patriarch of Constantinople, were exiled, they came to him. St. Liberius took them to Emperor Constance, who wrote to his brother, and they were allowed to return. After Constance was killed in Rome, Constantius sent to St. Liberius asking him to accept the followers of Arius, and to accept the exile of Athanasius, but he refused this petition. Constantius exiled St. Liberius, then came to Rome where he killed the killers of his brother. The heads of the monasteries and the priests met him and asked him to release their father Liberius. The emperor returned him from his exile, and he continued to teach and preach to his flock. He resisted the followers of Arius, until he departed in peace. He sat on the episcopal throne for fifteen years.May his prayers be with us. Amen.

Not the kind of remarks you’d expect the Coptic Churches to make about a man who delivered an actual excommunication against their Great Patriarch.

Regarding BBAS64’s post:

BBAS64 is quoting another selection of Athanasius’s Historia Arionorum.

Unfortunately, he quotes it without knowing his history, and so without knowing what Saint Athanasius is talking about. Felix was* not * the lawful Bishop of Rome. He was the antipope installed by the heretical Arian Emperor of Byzantium while the true Pope, Saint Liberius, was in exile! He was promptly deposed after Liberius returned to the city. Saint Athanasius, being the good Catholic he is, rightly condemns an antipope.

Do I even have to bring up all the other Catholic-distinctive beliefs that Athanasius held, which clearly set him apart from Protestants and their ilk?

C’mon guys. Quit embarrasing yourselves.