Was Athanasius Catholic?

[Aris]

I think there were several other threads related to this but I needed to know what makes non-Catholics think Athanasius and the other Early Church Fathers were not Catholics.

I have never seen anyone give the indicators why he and the other ECF were not Catholics.

 

[preyoflove]

Aris:

I think there were several other threads related to this but I needed to know what makes non-Catholics think Athanasius and the other Early Church Fathers were not Catholics.

I have never seen anyone give the indicators why he and the other ECF were not Catholics.

Well, I heard Evangelicals repeatedly make this claim more than other non-Catholics. They say that when Rome “took over the Church”, it started to “enforce its own agenda” and perpetuated it even to this day. Thus, they claim that the Roman Catholic Church today is an aberration of the Church of the Early Christians–and is therefore a false Church.

Not only that, they further claim, that their Churches are the true Churches because they believe and practice the beliefs–Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide and the like–of the Church of the Early Christians.

They really twist the writings of the Early Church Fathers, as they do with Sacred Scripture, to their own destruction.

Peace, so be it.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

Aris:

I think there were several other threads related to this but I needed to know what makes non-Catholics think Athanasius and the other Early Church Fathers were not Catholics.

Willful denial, for the most part. Just as a Protestant will interpret scripture for himself (usually in error), he will do the same with the Early Fathers. If he doesn’t, he ends up Catholic.

“A person steeped in history ceases to be Protestant” - John Cardinal Newman

 

[Apologia100]

Catholic Encyclopedia:

Bishop of Alexandria; Confessor and Doctor of the Church; born c. 296; died 2 May, 373. Athanasius was the greatest champion of Catholic belief on the subject of the Incarnation that the Church has ever known and in his lifetime earned the characteristic title of “Father of Orthodoxy”, by which he has been distinguished every since.

Hard not to be Catholic when you are a Bishop of the only body of Christians in existance at the time. In the 3rd century, every Christian was Catholic.

 

[Katholikos]

Athanasius (296 - 373) not a Catholic!!!??? He was the Catholic Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt!

He is author (A.D. 367) of the first accurate listing of New Testament writings that would be canonized in 382.

The Creed attributed to him declares in the first sentence “If anyone wishes to be saved, before everything else he must hold the Catholic Faith.” It pronounces anathemas on anyone who would deny its doctrines.

---

Here’s (future saint?) John Henry Cardinal Newman’s precise quote:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”

An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Image Books (Doubleday), 1960, p. 35.

 

[Athanasius]

Yes, I am a Catholic.

(Sorry, couldn’t resist…)

 

[p90]

Aris:

I think there were several other threads related to this but I needed to know what makes non-Catholics think Athanasius and the other Early Church Fathers were not Catholics.

Concerning Athanasius, no Catholic who would say the following:

“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture” (De Synodis, 6).

I have never seen anyone give the indicators why he and the other ECF were not Catholics.

Jason Engwer has done this with a number of the fathers in his CBNRC series:

ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_index.htm

~Matt

 

[Volodymyr]

Athanasius (296 - 373) not a Catholic!!!??? He was the Catholic Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt!

He is author (A.D. 367) of the first accurate listing of New Testament writings that would be canonized in 382.

The Creed attributed to him declares in the first sentence “If anyone wishes to be saved, before everything else he must hold the Catholic Faith.” It pronounces anathemas on anyone who would deny its doctrines.

Perhaps several objections from to this discussion (not from a Protestant)

1. Athanasius the Great was Patriarch of Alexandria and Greek-speaker. Today there is no Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria. Certainly St. Athanasius the Great would have considered himself a member of Catholic Church but that Church in Egypt is now divided into Orthodox and Coptic, but not Catholic.
2. Athanasius did not write the Creed Roman Catholics call the Athanasian Creed. It was writen in sixth century. I have been told by Caesarius of Arles although sources mostly say that the author is not known.

So Athanasius was a bishop of one Holy Catholic and Apostolic church with patriarchs in Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem and some years after his death in Constantinople.

May modern day Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Copts again find themselves in this united Church in answer to prayers of Holy St. Athanasius the Great.

 

[WBB]

Volodymyr:

May modern day Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Copts again find themselves in this united Church in answer to prayers of Holy St. Athanasius the Great.

Amen!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Apologia100:

Hard not to be Catholic when you are a Bishop of the only body of Christians in existance at the time. In the 3rd century, every Christian was Catholic.

The Arians were Christians, and they too thought of themselves as Catholics. Some of the earlier Christian groups were still around: the Marcionites, Novatianists & Montanists, all survived for centuries. As did various sorts of “paganism”.​

It would be interesting to know how much Arianism bothered Armenia and Persia & Mesopotamia and other distant Churches - the people one hears about seem to be confined to the Roman Empire, so it’s not difficult to overlook these others. ##

 

[preyoflove]

Athanasius:

Yes, I am a Catholic.

(Sorry, couldn’t resist…)

 

[bbas_64]

Aris:

I think there were several other threads related to this but I needed to know what makes non-Catholics think Athanasius and the other Early Church Fathers were not Catholics.

I have never seen anyone give the indicators why he and the other ECF were not Catholics.

Good Day, Aris

Define “catholic” in terms that you would feel covers that word in the 21 st century, lets see if he fits your term. Was not Athanasius thrown out of the church of his day?

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Concerning Athanasius, no Catholic who would say the following:

“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture” (De Synodis, 6).

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.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Define “catholic” in terms that you would feel covers that word in the 21 st century, lets see if he fits your term.

A Catholic is any Christian in communion with the Pope of Rome.

Was not Athanasius thrown out of the church of his day?

No, he wasn’t.

Next question?

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Consider these decrees from the Synod of Sardica. Saint Athanasius attended the Synod and approved its decrees:

Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add,–that no bishop pass from his own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless indeed he be called by his brethren, that we seem not to close the gates of charity. And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province. But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before. {Canon 3}

Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defence, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this. {Canon 4}

Bishop Hosius said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right–that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent. And be this also ordained. But if he think that the bishops are sufficient for the examination and decision of the matter let him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment. {Canon 5}

Papal primacy? Sounds awfully Catholic to me . . .

 

[Maccabees]

Saint Athanasius was a pentacostal everybody knows that!

 

[Katholikos]

1. Athanasius did not write the Creed Roman Catholics call the Athanasian Creed. It was writen in sixth century. I have been told by Caesarius of Arles although sources mostly say that the author is not known.

Yes, that’s why I said it was “attributed to him.” The Apostles Creed wasn’t written by the Apostles either, but it echoes their teaching, as the Athanasian Creed echoes the teaching of Athanasius and was therefore named for him.

Athanasius was a bishop when to be Christian meant to be Catholic.

JMJ Jay

 

[p90]

DominvsVobiscvm:

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

Perhaps I shall simply post an article by James White and say that the article you’ve posted has been “masterfully refuted”? No, that wouldn’t be useful or helpful.

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.

~Matt

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Maccabees:

Saint Athanasius was a pentacostal everybody knows that!

No, he was Baptist!!:tiphat::dancing:

 

[bbas_64]

DominvsVobiscvm:

A Catholic is any Christian in communion with the Pope of Rome.

No, he wasn’t.

Next question?

Good Day, Dominvs

Back up the bus for a moment please.

Roman Catholic Eamon Duffy:

In the misery of exile, surrounded by imperial clergy and far from home, Liberius weakened. He agreed to the excommunication of Athanasius

, and signed a formula which, while it did not actually repudiate the Nicene Creed, weakened it with the meaningless claim that the Logos was ‘like the father in being’ and in all things. In 358 he was finally allowed to return to Rome. Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997)

Christian Classics Ethereal Library:
Among the fragments of Hilary (Fragm. IV.) there is a letter purporting to be addressed by Liberius to his “beloved brethren and fellow-bishops throughout the East,” declaring that he agrees and communicates with them; and that Athanasius, having been summoned to Rome and refused to come, is out of communion with himself and the Roman church. Bower (Hist. of the Popes), Tillemont (Vie de S. Athan. t. viii. art. 64, note 68), and Milman (Lat. Christ. bk. i. c. 2), accept this letter as genuine. Baronius, the Benedictine editors of the works of Hilary, Hefele (Conciliengesch. bk. v. § 73)–the last very positively–reject it as an Arian forgery; their principal, if not only, ground being the improbability of his writing it.)

I will submit that Pope Liberius did in fact throw him out of the church, and that during this time Athanasius rejected the primacy of Rome with regaurds to his stance against Arianism which Rome fell into hook line and sninker for many years, under pressure that is true but non the less they failed to stand for the truth. Where as Athanasius with stood in the face of the presure brought upon him by the pope and Rome.

Peace to u,

Bill