Good Day, Dominvs
As has every Ecumenical Council from Nicea to Vatican II.
Good Day, DaveAs has every Ecumenical Council from Nicea to Vatican II.
That’s a good analogy. The Protestant would interpret the “constitution” for himself, whereas the Catholic understands that the “constitution” has established a governing body to truly be, with Divine help, the “pillar and foundation of truth” as is insisted upon by Sacred Scripture.
Not quite. I use to graze in the fields of Protestantism well before I became confirmed in the Catholic faith. It’s more truthful to say that what I was told by Protestantism didn’t square with what Scripture said. Then I discovered that, historically speaking, the Catholic Church has continuous succession from the apostles. Even Protestant church historians admit as much. That means that the ordinations in Catholicism are really from the apostles. On the contrary, Protestant ordination are rather dubious. Anybody can get a “certificate” of ordination by simply going to college and paying for it. That’s not how the laying of hands in NT times worked. Ordination came from the apostles, to their successors, who in turn ordained their successors, and so on. To do otherwise is to commit the sin of Korah’s rebellion which the Epistle of Jude warns against.
Again a very Protestant understanding of ecclesiology. You guys seem to think it is important to poll the opinions of the Taught Church as if that had any influence upon the true teachings of the apostlic Church. Catholics are not bound by popular opinion, but by what the teaching Church declares as doctrinal.
Good Day,That fact that you don’t even know what an antipope is shows that you have no business making rediculous, unhistorical assertions, especially regarding the nuances of early Church history.
I don’t mean to come across rude, but you really can’t do this if you want to be taken seriously.
An “antipope” is any false claimant to the Papal throne.
Felix was never elected bishop of Rome. Liberius was. Liberius was always a firm supporter of Athanasius against the Arians. Because of this, the heretical (i.e. Arian) Byzantine Emperor had Saint Liberius exiled, imprisoned, tortured, and threatened with death. Under those conditions, Saint Liberius signed an excommunication against Athanasius. But again, it was under duress. (Look up that word in the dictionary in case you don’t know it.) When he returned to Rome and regained his freedom of will, he continued to support Athanasius as he had before.
While Saint Liberius, the true Pope, was in exile, the Byzantine Emperor installed an antipope, Felix, in Rome. After Liberius was forced, against his will, to sign the “excommunication,” the Emperor allowed Liberius to return to Rome, but only on the condition that he and Felix rule as joint-bishops of the city.
This was, of course, impossible, since there can only be one true bishop of any city, and only one true Pope of Rome, and that was Liberius. So the peopl of Rome natually revolted against the Emperor, and Felix was deposed.
Felix was never Pope to begin with, and Saint Athanasius knew this.
Read over my last few posts again; read over them slowly and carefully. I addressed, at length, Athanasius’s “excommunication” by Liberius, with much documentation.
Please don’t comment again until you’ve looked it over. We don’t need you wasting any more of Catholic Answers’s server space than you have to . . .
The Excommunication of Athanasius by Liberius is just his own personal jugdement, and not a refection of his “infallible” understanding of what is or is not with in the boundries of “the faith” proclaimed for those who are in union with Rome. Though this view by this catholic author does beg many many questions I shall refrain from doing so here as it seems some have grown weary of my questions and “assertions”.
Why should we respond to them? The quote in question isn’t one on the papacy. It’s one where Athanasius believes that councils are not necessary because Scripture can sufficiently relate the beliefs that are to be held.
He quoted other works by Athanasius that don’t explain the context of the original quote. The only relevant response he gave was to reference the same link you gave earlier.
Sit down before you hurt yourself.
The thread’s topic is one of, “Was Athanasius Catholic?” The Synod of Sardica, attended by and approved by Athanasius, is very Catholic in its view of the Papacy.
I gave you a link that put the quote in its context. According to Athanasius, Scripture is “sufficient” only when read in light of the Church’s Tradition. He himself criticizes the Arians, who appealed to the Bible to support their heretical beliefs, but interpreted Scripture contrary to the mind of the Church.
It’s ok, Dominvs. I think if St. Athanasius wrote “I am Catholic and the Pope is the supreme pastor of the Church, and he makes infallible statements when he speaks ex cathedra” the protestants would say, “Oh, but that is not what he meant.”
… where Athanasius asserted the “sufficiency” of the Nicene Council. Appearantly, Athanasius believes Ecumenical Councils are sufficient to refute heresies as well as the sufficiency of Sacred Scritpure, correctly interpreted. The problem is, Sacred Scripture throughout history has been incorrectly interpreted. Thus, the need for and sufficiency of Ecumenical Councils.
We should stick to one aspect of Athanasius’ beliefs at a time. His view of Scripture and its relation to councils is separate from his view of the papacy. Including it at this point of the discussion would be like quoting Clement of Rome’s eschatology during a discussion of his soteriology.
The section you’re referring to is two and a half pages of argumentation in response to James White. Why should I be expected to respond to every point that is made there, especially since I’m not James White nor do I know what original argument he was making?
Athanasius says otherwise in the original quote provided:
I don’t have to prove it. The question is whether or not Athanasius believed the Arian position was possible to refute from Scripture alone. He did. In addition to the original quotation, Athanasius writes:
That’s a nice bit of equivocation. The real question is what Athanasius meant by the Trinity being provable from Scripture, and you haven’t proved in the least that he meant that someone who was unschooled in Tradition and untrained in the life and practice of the Church would be able to do so. It is natural to conclude that he meant that anyone who was familiar with the Church’s traditions would have considered this interpretation obvious, but it is a groundless assertion to further conclude that the words of Scripture themselves made it obvious. Athanasius’s statements are consistent with the view that one doesn’t need an entirely separate source of information to discern the Trinity in Scripture (material sufficiency), but it is implausible to further assert that he considered this meaning discernible by the text alone (formal sufficiency).
It’s this type of artificial separation that leads to misinterpretation. I would think that Clement’s eschatology would be extremely relevant to his soteriology (and even his Eucharistic theology), since patristic theology links those subjects in a holistic manner. Indeed, it would be malpractice for any responsible historian to ignore such connections. Similarly, I think there is an error here in treating Athanasius’s beliefs on the papacy and on Scripture as entirely separate. Clearly, both his interpretive techniques and his respect for the papacy and councils fall within a larger umbrella of Athanasius’s respect for Tradition as the lived and shared experience of the Church, and if you artificially exclude his views on the papacy, that larger view might be missed.
Good Day, WBBIt’s ok, Dominvs. I think if St. Athanasius wrote “I am Catholic and the Pope is the supreme pastor of the Church, and he makes infallible statements when he speaks ex cathedra” the protestants would say, “Oh, but that is not what he meant.”
, the problem with what you present is the fact that have never did. So to think that is only germaine in your dreams and lacks material to support it.
Good Day,
. I never denied that Liberius was under destress when signing the excommunication of Athanasius… you may what to go back a read cafrefully what I wrote . The question was Athanasius excommunicated by Liberius the answer is yes, you asserted that he was not.