Was Athanasius Catholic?

[JPrejean]

p90:

If you weren’t satisfied with the specificity of my terms, why would you then use vague terms yourself? You could have asked for me to define what I wrote in a more concrete manner.

I thought that I had, in that I gave a particular example of what I meant in Athanasius’s argument. I apologize if that wasn’t clear. But more generally, the problem is that I can’t be more specific about terms like “Tradition” and “the life and the practice of the Church.” They are, by their very nature, open-ended. You can’t point to a list and say “X, Y, and Z are tradition, while A, B, and C are not.” I can only explain how the principle works in a particular context and in response to a particular argument, which I thought that I had done. I presume that you intended to assert that Athanasius held the Arian error to be refutable per sola scriptura, and my point was that Athanasius cannot be made to demonstrate that conclusion for any reasonably specific definition of sola scriptura (whether Mathison’s “Tradition 1” or otherwise).

Would you mind demonstrating these two points? The conclusions might be obvious to you, but such a position is not useful in discussion with someone holding to another view.

Again, I thought that I had demonstrated them, rather than simply stating them as obvious. Is there a particular part of my argument that is unclear? My point is that Athanasius’s argument from Scripture is made in a manner that would not demonstrate a belief in sola scriptura and would likely contradict it outright. Perhaps this illustration from Athanasius’s argument would be clearer. Athanasius used evidence such as:

Susanna said, ‘O Everlasting God[3];’ and Baruch wrote,
‘I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,’ and shortly after, 'My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One[4]
…
and David too in the eighty-ninth Psalm, ‘And the brightness of the Lord be upon us,’ and, ‘In Thy Light shall we see Light[6],’ who has so little sense as to doubt of the eternity of the Son[7]?
…
And the words addressed to the Son in the hundred and forty-fourth Psalm,

Now what textual warrant or exegetical principle does Athanasius have for presuming that the 89th and 144th Psalms are Messianic? And why is he arguing from these so-called non-Scriptural sources, Baruch and Susanna, if his goal is to show that Scripture alone (per the Protestant interpretation) is sufficient?
These anomalies are simply inconsistent with the hypothesis that Athanasius was endorsing sola scriptura.

you would rather point me toward scholarship that you think sufficiently discusses this issue, I would be happy to research this from sources you recommend rather than attempt to touch upon a subject that you may believe is too complicated to be approached on a discussion board.

I do, and my purpose generally is to steer people to the wheat (trained and reputable patristics scholars) and away from the chaff (Bill Webster, George Salmon, et al.). If you want a brief introduction to what an actual survey of a Father’s writings looks like, see Joe Gallegos on St. Athanasius: cin.org/users/jgallegos/athans.htm. At the bottom of the following dialogue from Dave Armstrong, you get to see the opinions of heavyweights in ecclesial history (Newman, Kelly, Schaff, Pelikan) on sola scriptura among the Church Fathers generally, and with respect to Athanasius in particular: ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ319.HTM. By all means, go out and read these authors.

 

[JPrejean]

itsjustdave1988:

The sufficiency of Scripture is certainly asserted, but it is a minor point of his, made almost as a sidenote or a recollection of his pre-Nicene assertion.

Oh, I completely agree that it is making a mountain out of a molehill. The assertion is more in the nature of “I can beat Arianism with both hands tied behind my back,” and it could not possibly be viewed as an endorsement of sola scriptura unless you take it completely out of context, and indeed, in exactly the opposite sense that Athanasius intended it. But even if the Protestants mistake the reason for making this argument, they are right in saying that he did make part of his proof based on Scripture without reference to councils. Since they refuse to accept our explanation of his reasons for doing so, we have no choice but to show that the words of the argument themselves are inadequate to prove their point. At least, that’s how I see it, but it’s just MHO. There is nothing logically deficient in your argument, but I fear that it will be perceived as talking past the other side’s concerns.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Why are we all repeating ourselves?

I tried my best to answer the Protestants’ various arguments and questions with post #62 thru #66.

If the Protestants think they still have a case, then by all means let them address my posts and arguments. Otherwise, we’re just needlessly repeating ourselves and going off on tangents.

 

[JPrejean]

Otherwise, we’re just needlessly repeating ourselves and going off on tangents.

Agreed. I think I’ve said my piece, so I will stop cluttering the thread. After this post. Right… now!

 

[p90]

JPrejean:

I presume that you intended to assert that Athanasius held the Arian error to be refutable per sola scriptura, and my point was that Athanasius cannot be made to demonstrate that conclusion for any reasonably specific definition of sola scriptura (whether Mathison’s “Tradition 1” or otherwise).

The purpose wasn’t so much to assert that Athanasius held to Sola Scriptura but that he didn’t find the council necessary (either in terms of formal or material sufficiency, but we could limit this to material sufficiency for purposes of my argument) to relate the truths of the Trinity. From what I have read of Catholic apologetics, they consistently argue that such councils are needed (as far as I understand, in terms of both formal and material sufficiency) for Protestants to understand the Trinity.

Unfortunately, I found myself defending Sola Scriptura as Athanasius’ position later. I shouldn’t have let the debate go in that direction.

Now what textual warrant or exegetical principle does Athanasius have for presuming that the 89th and 144th Psalms are Messianic? And why is he arguing from these so-called non-Scriptural sources, Baruch and Susanna, if his goal is to show that Scripture alone (per the Protestant interpretation) is sufficient?

This is better, but perhaps my objection still has not been voiced clearly enough. While there is no reason for us to see Athanasius’ interpretation as valid, what reason do we have for applying our standard of what can and cannot be read from a text to Athansius? Why should we believe that his view of the text is unnatural from his perspective unless read in light of a traditional understanding?

If you’re going to argue that his references to Baruch and Susanna support that he is appealing to an understanding that could only be found in a traditional perspective, on what basis do you make that claim? Why can’t it be seen as an appeal to other authorities that simply agree with his interpretation?

By all means, go out and read these authors.

I’ve read some Kelly and Schaff, but only a little of Newman and none of Pelikan. Can you recommend some works from the latter two?

~Matt

 

[JPrejean]

Ah, we weren’t so far apart after all, then. I concur that Athanasius was arguing that a council shouldn’t have been necessary, although it was useful in that it specified the doctrine more exactly. On that point, we agree. However, it’s worthwhile to note that it was, in fact, necessary to rein in the heresy, which leads me to the next point:

p90:

From what I have read of Catholic apologetics, they consistently argue that such councils are needed (as far as I understand, in terms of both formal and material sufficiency) for Protestants to understand the Trinity.

I have little affection for that particular form of the argument (and I certainly wouldn’t say that it is used consistently), but I think its thrust still hits the mark. It would be difficult to argue that the Trinity is not set forth materially in Scripture, particularly in light of Athanasius’s argument here. But as to formal sufficiency, I think that the evidence is decidedly against viewing Athanasius’s argument as a proof for formal sufficiency. Consider that for such a proof to be effective, Athanasius would have to rely solely on textual basis and sound hermenutics of the historical-grammatical method. But Athanasius relies on interpretive principles that are not derived from either of those sources. Moreover, when Athanasius rebuts the Arian interpretation of Scripture, he argues from an orthodox ecclesiastical sense equally along with grammatical considerations.

p90:

While there is no reason for us to see Athanasius’ interpretation as valid, what reason do we have for applying our standard of what can and cannot be read from a text to Athansius? Why should we believe that his view of the text is unnatural from his perspective unless read in light of a traditional understanding?

That’s not relevant to the argument, since formal sufficiency is a matter of the text itself, not what one thinks about the text. My point in discussing Athanasius’s view is only to show that if his goal in the argument was to show the formal sufficiency of Scripture to demonstrate the Trinity, then his argument would have objectively failed to do so.

If you’re going to argue that his references to Baruch and Susanna support that he is appealing to an understanding that could only be found in a traditional perspective, on what basis do you make that claim? Why can’t it be seen as an appeal to other authorities that simply agree with his interpretation?

First, it’s extraordinarily unlikely that he considers them “other authorities” simply because he treats them absolutely identically with his other Scriptural references, which would kill the idea that Athanasius believe in sola scriptura right out of the gate. Second, even if he did view them as “other authorities,” that would only be more evidence that his argument was not intended to show the formal sufficiency of Scripture to show the divinity of Christ, since he relied on extra-Scriptural sources.

I’ve read some Kelly and Schaff, but only a little of Newman and none of Pelikan. Can you recommend some works from the latter two?

Newman’s Essay on the Development of Doctrine is a must-read for understanding the Catholic view of development. Anything in Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition series is worthwhile, and I’ve also had Christianity and Classical Culture recommended.

 

[Aris]

DominvsVobiscvm:

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

I think this briefly sums up why Athanasius was Catholic and the other ECF for that matter.

I have not seen any evidence yet put forward by non-catholics to prove that he was not Catholic. All evidence points to him being a Christian in communion with Rome. I do not think he had the other memberships.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

The purpose wasn’t so much to assert that Athanasius held to Sola Scriptura but that he didn’t find the council necessary (either in terms of formal or material sufficiency, but we could limit this to material sufficiency for purposes of my argument) to relate the truths of the Trinity. From what I have read of Catholic apologetics, they consistently argue that such councils are needed (as far as I understand, in terms of both formal and material sufficiency) for Protestants to understand the Trinity.

Well, we have to understand that whether or not a particular Council or dogmatic statement is “needed” for us to understand a particular Truth of the Faith, or whether or not said Truth is “obvious” from reading Scripture is a matter of personal, subjective opinion.

I for one, along with many Catholics and others, believe that the doctrine of the Real Pressence is obvious from the pages off Scripture. I believe there’s hardly, if any, ambiguity about it at all. This doesn’t mean I don’t recognize the need for Councils to put the issue at rest, or to confirm a conclusion which I have already reached by reason.

Likewise, Athanasius recognizes the authoroty of Nicea, and that the only way to understand Scripture is to read it in light of the Church’s tradition, in light of the Fathers; in short, in an “ecclesiastical sense.”

Again, I’ve yet to see anyone respond to a single quote by Athanasius that I have produced in support of my views on this.

You don’t think I’ve demonstrated (post #62 thru #66) that Athanasius recognized the authority of Nicea? If you don’t, then please address the various points in my rebuttal. If you can’t, then I think the winners of this debate are obvious.

 

[John_of_Woking]

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.

Athanasius was a great Catholic

 

[p90]

JPrejean:

I have little affection for that particular form of the argument (and I certainly wouldn’t say that it is used consistently), but I think its thrust still hits the mark. It would be difficult to argue that the Trinity is not set forth materially in Scripture, particularly in light of Athanasius’s argument here.

Would you agree that Athanasius’ view of material sufficiency is mutually exclusive with the common Catholic view that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be proven from the Scriptures?

That’s not relevant to the argument, since formal sufficiency is a matter of the text itself, not what one thinks about the text. My point in discussing Athanasius’s view is only to show that if his goal in the argument was to show the formal sufficiency of Scripture to demonstrate the Trinity, then his argument would have objectively failed to do so.

It’s irrelevant whether or not his approach fails from our perspective, so the matter of formal sufficiency is to be answered from how Athanasius views the text; the question is what Athanasius believes. Can we establish if he did or did not believe that his understanding of, for example, the Psalms, was an understanding he derived from the text without complete dependence upon an another authority to relate that understanding?

First, it’s extraordinarily unlikely that he considers them “other authorities” simply because he treats them absolutely identically with his other Scriptural references

Can you show this? It’s still not clear from what you’ve argued that Athanasius treats the material in such a way. Someone can quote from extra-Scriptural sources to bolster a particular argument without relying on them.

~Matt

 

[p90]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Again, I’ve yet to see anyone respond to a single quote by Athanasius that I have produced in support of my views on this.

I’m one of only a hand-full of Protestants who are posting in this thread, and most of the arguments and quotations seem to be directed at what I’ve written. This week has been incredibly busy, so I’ve only had the time to respond to JPrejean’s arguments. However, I will address some of what you’ve written, and, if itsjustdave1988 desires the same, I will take the time to respond to some of his arguments. Please be patient; I have been busy and there are many posts to respond to.

You don’t think I’ve demonstrated (post #62 thru #66) that Athanasius recognized the authority of Nicea?

A lot of what you wrote in those posts was irrelevant to the discussion (indicating that my standards turn Vatican II into a Protestant council, discussing what Nicea as a council related as its authority, what Jimmy Akin has to say about Catholicism’s treatment of Scripture and Tradition, etc.) and didn’t demonstrate that Athanasius recognized the authority of the council in a Catholic way. The one reference I can see as relevant is used in a fallacious nature. When you quote Athanasius saying, “But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicaea, abides for ever,” you assume that Athanasius is referring to the council itself and the Lord speaking through it. However, the reference by itself could equally be seen as a reference to the Scriptural truths reflected in the council, which is the position I would take given the original quotation I provided. On this point you need to make a more definitive case for defending Athanasius as a member of your denomination.

~Matt

 

[p90]

Aris:

I have not seen any evidence yet put forward by non-catholics to prove that he was not Catholic.

You may disagree with what has been posted as evidence, but how can you say that no evidence has been forwarded at all? Have you been following this thread?

~Matt

 

[JPrejean]

p90:

Would you agree that Athanasius’ view of material sufficiency is mutually exclusive with the common Catholic view that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be proven from the Scriptures?

No, I wouldn’t agree with that statement. The common Catholic view that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be proved from the Scriptures is based on formal insufficiency, not material insufficiency. Not knowing a bit of how you came to perceive that the “common Catholic view” is material insufficiency, I can’t only say that in my experience the significant majority of Catholic apologists (including some of our hosts at Catholic Answers) hold to material sufficiency of Scripture to show all Catholic doctrines, and the Trinity is certainly among them.

It’s irrelevant whether or not his approach fails from our perspective, so the matter of formal sufficiency is to be answered from how Athanasius views the text; the question is what Athanasius believes.

No, and here’s why. 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 can only hypothesize what he meant by Scriptural sufficiency and test the predictions of that hypothesis against his writings. To form that hypothesis, 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.

I read your objection as “well, what if Athanasius considered himself to be making an argument from the text itself, even though we don’t?” IOW, he was setting out to show the formal sufficiency of Scripture in proving the divinity of Christ, but he just goofed and used something that was inconsistent with an argument for formal sufficiency. His argument wasn’t perfect, but his heart was in the right place. But all that argument buys you is the ability to say that the evidence is inconclusive, since we have no way of determining Athanasius’s subjective intent. Thus, that argument neither proves your case nor rebuts the counter-explanation that Athanasius meant material sufficiency.

p90:

Can we establish if he did or did not believe that his understanding of, for example, the Psalms, was an understanding he derived from the text without complete dependence upon an another authority to relate that understanding?

First, “complete dependence” is a red herring. Any dependence on an extra-Scriptural, extra-hermeneutical source would render Athanasius’s argument at least inconclusive with respect to formal 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.

p90:

Can you show this? It’s still not clear from what you’ve argued that Athanasius treats the material in such a way. Someone can quote from extra-Scriptural sources to bolster a particular argument without relying on them.

First and most importantly, there is absolutely no principle of critical interpretation that would give such a hypothesis any weight at all. You’re essentially arguing that Athanasius quoted these works in the exact same manner as his Scriptural sources, without distinguishing them in any way, in the middle of an argument that was supposed to rely only on Scripture, but that he wasn’t quoting them as Scripture. If such improbable hypotheses can be accepted with literally no evidence to support them, then you might as well throw the idea of critical historical studies out the window. Second, even if he was (against all common sense) making the argument that you describe, it would still render the evidence inconclusive for your hypothesis.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

On this point you need to make a more definitive case for defending Athanasius as a member of your denomination.

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

The 1st century bishop of Anitoch, St. Ignatius (AD 50 - 110) called the catholic Church the one in which the Church of Rome “presides.” He was an student of St. John the Apostle, so I gather he was considered quite orthodox during his day.

I think it’s you that needs to put forth evidence that there was some other Catholic Church that Athanasius belonged to that was different than the one Ignatius asserted was presided by the Church of Rome.

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

… St. Athanasius has preserved Pope Julius’ letter he has given it his sanction. I will quote a passage of protest from Pope Julius to the Eusebian party preserved by St. Athanasius:

'Supposing, as you assert, that there was some charge against them [Athanasius & Marcellus], the case ought not to have been conducted thus, but according to ecclesiastical canon. You should have written to us all, so that justice might be determined by all. For the sufferers were bishops, and prominent churches, which the apostles themselves had governed. And why were we not written to especially about the church of the Alexandrians**? Are you ignorant that the custom was first to write to us, and then for justice to be determined from here?**

’ (St. Athanasius, Apologia 35, cited by Joe Gallegos, cin.org/users/jgallegos/papacy1.htm)

 

[RBushlow]

p90:

Concerning Athanasius

Read the first sentance of the Athanasian Creed, then try again.
Oh, and he was the Catholic Bishop of Alexandria, as well.

Go with Christ.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

A lot of what you wrote in those posts was irrelevant to the discussion . . . and didn’t demonstrate that Athanasius recognized the authority of the council in a Catholic way.

It was relevant insofar as I had to show that Athanasius’s statements on the “sufficiency of Scripture” were not at all inconcistent with Catholicism.

Regarding Councils: Again, in his De Synodis he writes:

As to the Nicene Council, it was not a common meeting, but convened upon a pressing necessity, and for a reasonable object. The Syrians, Cilicians, and Mesopotamians, were out of order in celebrating the Feast, and kept Easter with the Jews; on the other hand, the Arian heresy had risen up against the Catholic Church, and found supporters in Eusebius and his fellows, who were both zealous for the heresy, and conducted the attack upon religious people. This gave occasion for an Ecumenical Council, that the feast might be everywhere celebrated on one day, and that the heresy which was springing up might be anathematized. It took place then; and the Syrians submitted, and the Fathers pronounced the Arian heresy to be the forerunner of Antichrist, and drew up a suitable formula against it. And yet in this, many as they are, they ventured on nothing like the proceedings of these three or four men. Without pre-fixing Consulate, month, and day, they wrote concerning Easter, ‘It seemed good as follows,’ for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, ‘It seemed good,’ but, ‘Thus believes the Catholic Church;’ and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to shew that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles.

And again in his Defence of the Nicene Definition:

Are they not then committing a crime, in their very thought to gainsay so great and ecumenical a Council? Are they not in transgression, when they dare to confront that good definition against Arianism, acknowledged, as it is, by those who had in the first instance taught them irreligion? And supposing, even after subscription, Eusebius and his fellows did change again, and return like dogs to their own vomit of irreligion, do not the present gain-sayers deserve still greater detestation, because they thus sacrifices their souls’ liberty to others; and are willing to take these persons as masters of their heresy, who are, as James has said, double-minded men, and unstable in all their ways, not having one opinion, but changing to and fro, and now recommending certain statements, but soon dishonouring them, and in turn recommending what just now they were blaming? But this, as the Shepherd has said, is “the child of the devil,” and the note of hucksters rather than of doctors. For, what our Fathers have delivered, this is truly doctrine; and this is truly the token of doctors, to confess the same thing with each other, and to vary neither from themselves nor from their fathers; whereas they who have not this character are to be called not true doctors but evil. Thus the Greeks, as not witnessing to the same doctrines, but quarrelling one with another, have no truth of teaching; but the holy and veritable heralds of the truth agree together, and do not differ. For though they lived in different times, yet they one and all tend the same way, being prophets of the one God, and preaching the same Word harmoniously.

Here Athanasius discusses both the authority of an Ecumenical Council and the authority of Church Tradition.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

And here’s another quote from the letter of Pope Julius to the Eusibians, preserved for us by Athanasius in his Defence Against the Arians:

Yet what has been done that is a just cause of vexation? or in what respect was my letter to you such? Was it, that I invited you to be present at a council? You ought rather to have received the proposal with joy. Those who have confidence in their proceedings, or as they choose to term them, in their decisions, are not wont to be angry, if such decision is inquired into by others; they rather shew all boldness, seeing that if they have given a just decision, it can never prove to be the reverse. The Bishops who assembled in the great Council of Nicaea agreed, not without the will of God, that the decisions of one council should be examined in another, to the end that the judges, having before their eyes that other trial which was to follow, might be led to investigate matters with the utmost caution, and that the parties concerned in their sentence might have assurance that the judgment they received was just, and not dictated by the enmity of their former judges. Now if you are unwilling that such a practice should be adopted in your own case, though it is of ancient standing, and has been noticed and recommended by the great Council, your refusal is not becoming; for it is unreasonable that a custom which had once obtained in the Church, and been established by councils, should be set aside by a few individuals.

continued next post

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

For a further reason they cannot justly take offence in this point. When the persons whom you, Eusebius and his fellows, dispatched with your letters, I mean Macarius the Presbyter, and Martyrius and Hesychius the Deacons, arrived here, and found that they were unable to withstand the arguments of the Presbyters who came from Athanasius, but were confuted and exposed on all sides, they then requested me to call a Council together, and to write to Alexandria to the Bishop Athanasius, and also to Eusebius and his fellows, in order that a just judgment might be given in presence of all parties. And they undertook in that case to prove all the charges which had been brought against Athanasius. For Martyrius and Hesychius had been publicly refuted by us, and the Presbyters of the Bishop Athanasius had withstood them with great confidence: indeed, if one must tell the truth, Martyrius and his fellows had been utterly overthrown; and this it was that led them to desire that a Council might be held. Now supposing that they had not desired a Council, but that I had been the person to propose it, in discouragement of those who had written to me, and for the sake of our brethren who complain that they have suffered injustice; even in that case the proposal would have been reasonable and just, for it is agreeable to ecclesiastical practice, and well pleasing to God. But when those persons, whom you, Eusebius and his fellows, considered to be trustworthy, when even they wished me to call the brethren together, it was inconsistent in the parties invited to take offence, when they ought rather to have shewn all readiness to be present. These considerations shew that the display of anger in the offended persons is petulant, and the refusal of those who decline to meet the Council is unbecoming, and has a suspicious appearance. Does any one find fault, if he sees that done by another, which he would allow if done by himself? If, as you write, each council has an irreversible force, and he who has given judgment on a matter is dishonoured, if his sentence is examined by others; consider, dearly beloved, who are they that dishonour councils? Who are setting aside the decisions of former judges? Not to inquire at present into every individual case, lest I should appear to press too heavily on certain parties, the last instance that has occurred, and which every one who hears it must shudder at, will be sufficient in proof of the others which I omit.

The heretic Esebius was right when he said that the doctrinal judgements of Councils were irreversible. Pope Julius calls him on this oncinsistency because the so-called “Councils” called by the Arians attempted to reverse the irreversible decisions of Nicea!

Athanasius quotes approvingly of the Letter.

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

 

[Aris]

p90:

You may disagree with what has been posted as evidence, but how can you say that no evidence has been forwarded at all? Have you been following this thread?

~Matt

Because early on the thread it was asked how to define a Catholic. And that is a Christian in communion with Rome.

Was he a Christian? We all agree even you, Matt.

Was he in communion with Rome? He was and can be shown by the posts of DominvsVobiscvm regarding the"excommunication" and subsequent letter of Athanasius regarding this.

The discussion regarding Athanasius’s writings regarding sufficiency of scripture is just icing on the cake. It only reinforces the fact above.

You really have to prove that the Church in Alexandria was not Catholic. Then you might want to explain how that Church survived to present day.

 

[p90]

DominvsVobiscvm:

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

No one was or is arguing this. How did you come to this conclusion based on what has been written so far?

~Matt