Was Athanasius Catholic?

[p90]

JPrejean:

Sorry about that. I think we all try to be careful about getting things right, but sometimes, we make mistakes. Also, people in these discussions get defensive and focus too much on winning and not enough on helping the other guy to understand. When people get into that “win at all costs” mentality, they can get careless.

I agree, although I must extend grace to those who are defensive, for I have been that way in the past often.

Anyway, thank you for being so civil, and I hope the discussion was helpful.

It was quite helpful and thank you for your tone as well; I am sure that the confusion was not easy to deal with and required patience on your part. I have learned how to communicate better with Catholics and have learned more about the official position of Catholicism; I must be more critical of what Catholics write and check it against the official position.

Thanks for your time,
~Matt

 

[Aris]

p90:

It was quite helpful and thank you for your tone as well; I am sure that the confusion was not easy to deal with and required patience on your part. I have learned how to communicate better with Catholics and have learned more about the official position of Catholicism; I must be more critical of what Catholics write and check it against the official position.

Thanks for your time,
~Matt

So Matt,

Do you still think Athanasius was not Catholic?

If so, what are the reasons?

I am very much confused with the issues sidetracked.

I thought it simple just to prove to what Church he belonged. If not Catholic, what Church? And what would be the distinct properties of that Church that would differentitate it from the Catholic Church.

 

[p90]

Aris:

If so, what are the reasons?

If we want to restrict this to one issue, his canon did not agree with the current Roman Catholic canon.

If not Catholic, what Church?

I don’t understand why Catholics always ask this question. What is supposed to be accomplished through it?

~Matt

 

[Maccabees]

p90:

If we want to restrict this to one issue, his canon did not agree with the current Roman Catholic canon.

I don’t understand why Catholics always ask this question. What is supposed to be accomplished through it?

~Matt

For one thing the early councils that did decree the official canon for the western church was not binding on the eastern church thus Athanasius was not opposing anybody when he had a different list the discussion was not closed in the eastern part of the church. The East and West since they spoke different languages and since they traveled by foot and horseback instead of airplanes and jets rarely joined together unless their was a theological issue so big it threatened to split the church than a ecumenical council was called. At this point and time the canon was settled by local councils separately since neither side adhered to sola scriptura and believed in the authority of tradition the differing canons were not that big a deal. The western church codifed its canon earlier than the east. There was no controversy against east and west concerning the differing canon at this point. If there was somebody would have brought it up and a ecumenical council would have been called the west was happy to have a local decision handle the matter.

Plus this is not a winning argument for any church body his canon was not either present day Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant. His Old Testament Canon included the books of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and excluded Esther.

I know protestants don’t have the books of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah in their Old Testament but we catholics do. I know Catholics and Protestants have Esther in their Old Testament but Athanasius did not have it in his OT canon.

Now if you have the same canon as Athanasius than you must belong to the same church he does; since that is your illogical line of thinking what do we conclude?. Since nobody has that exact same canon and since the canon in the eastern catholic church was not settled thus Athanasius could have whatever opinion he wanted to.

Since you illogical thought process has Athanasius belonging to no church at all lets do some further investigation.

 

[Maccabees]

Athanasius nowhere says tradition is confined to Scripture. Does he say it is inspired and authoritative sure but so do does the catholic church. Only when taken out of context do you use attempt to use him but he’s not a protestant. He loved scripture and saw it through the tradition of the catholic church. Scripture is simply part of Athanasius understanding of tradition. And just what the tradition he believed in held in its interpretation looks catholic to me.

He believed in the authority of the Ecunemical council; Mary as “Mother of God”; Mary’s perpetual virginity; the stainlessness of Mary; the necessity of baptism; baptismal regeneration; the real presence of Christ in the eucharist; apostloic succession; celibacy; the Jurisdiction of Rome; and many other catholic doctrines.

The Question of which church if not catholic is a valid one because on close inspection he’s catholic on most of the dividing issues between catholics and protestants. I can see why you try to avoid answering because Athanasius theology would not fit in any protestant church today. He is what is he is; a catholic of the fourth century who would know which church to go to today. He would ask for the catholic church for he knew no other. He has no use for those who protested against the church. His writings were battles against heretic who opposed the catholic church his opponents who misinterpret and misuse scripture against the catholic church. Hmm sound familiar?

…in her craft and cunning, affects to array herself in Scripture language, like her father the devil…the author of heresies, because of the ill savor which attaches to evil, borrows Scripture language, as a cloak wherewith to sow the ground with his own poison also, and to seduce the simple…they fall back upon passages of divine Scripture, and here too from want of understanding …they discern not their meaning; but laying down their own irreligion as a sort of canon of interpretation, they wrest the whole of the divine oracles into accordance with it.

Discourse 1

 

[p90]

Maccabees:

Plus this is not a winning argument for any church body his canon was not either present day Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant. His Old Testament Canon included the books of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and excluded Esther.

I’m not the one who claims that Athanasius was a member of my denominations. It would only be problematic to my position if I did claim that.

Now if you have the same canon as Athanasius than you must belong to the same church he does; since that is your illogical line of thinking what do we conclude?. Since nobody has that exact same canon and since the canon in the eastern catholic church was not settled thus Athanasius could have whatever opinion he wanted to.

If Athanasius could still remain Catholic in terms of holding a different canon until an infallible decree stated the extent of that canon, why do you criticize Martin Luther for his views on the canon? Would you say that Martin Luther’s view of the canon was Catholic until Trent because the church hadn’t settled the matter yet? I don’t mind if the Catholic position allows for Athanasius to be Catholic because of no infallible ruling on the canon (my disagreement would then be about how to determine who was and wasn’t Catholic), but I would like some consistency on your part.

The Question of which church if not catholic is a valid one because on close inspection heÍs catholic on most of the dividing issues between catholics and protestants.

If it is merely used to highlight what Athanasius believed, it is redundant. Do I understand what you view the use of the question to be?

~Matt

 

[PhilVaz]

p90 << If Athanasius could still remain Catholic in terms of holding a different canon until an infallible decree stated the extent of that canon, why do you criticize Martin Luther for his views on the canon? >>

Let’s get it straight first what St. Athanasius held to be the OT canon. This is a side issue from the main issue of this thread (whether Athanasius held a Catholic view on Scripture and Tradition, etc), but here it is from Schaff:

“Athansius enumerates, as ‘outside the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us,’ Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, and Tobit, as well as what is called the Teaching of the Apostles and the Shepherd. In practice, however, he quotes several of the latter as ‘Scripture’ (Wisdom repeatedly so, see index to this vol.); ‘The Shepherd’ is ‘most profitable,’ and quoted for the Unity of the Creator (and cf. de Decr. 4), but not as ‘Scripture;’ the ‘Didache’ is not used by him unless the Syntagma (vide supra, p. lix.) be his genuine work. He also quotes 1 Esdras for the praise of Truth, and 2 Esdras once, as a ‘prophet.’ ‘Daniel’ includes Susanna and Bel and the Dragon.”

The source for that quote is found here

Athanasius on Scripture, Tradition, and Catholic Doctrine in response to Webster/King

From my limited study of the question, there appears to be two views on the OT canon held by the early Church:

(1) the deuterocanonicals were Scripture and fully canonical
(2) the deuterocanonicals were Scripture but not fully canonical, they were read at the Liturgy and for edification purposes

Protestants (evangelicals) today hold neither of these views. Athanasius in addition held Baruch as part of Jeremiah, and the “additions” to Daniel as canonical. See Athanasius Festal Letter 39:6,7 for a summary of his OT canon position: “…Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations…“and 27-book NT – three divisions: canonical, those deuterocanonicals read for edification, and those Gnostic “apocryphal” writings, the “invention of heretics.” …”‘Daniel’ includes Susanna and Bel and the Dragon.”

But all of this is a side issue from the main thrust of the thread that Athanasius was indeed a “Catholic” on the Scripture and Tradition issues and other essential doctrines. As pointed out by DominVobis and others

Saint Athanasius 1) recognized Papal primacy over the Church, 2) recognized the authority of Ecumenical Councils, 3) recognized the validity and authority of Church Tradition, 4) taught that Mary was Mother of God, 5) taught that Mary was ever-virgin, 6) taught the real Pressence of Christ in the Eucharist, 7) taught that one could lose salvation by commiting mortal sin, etc.

Most of these points are already thoroughly documented above. So this whole “Athanasius wasn’t a member of my denomination” nonsense of Jason Engwer is just that: nonsense. Find a new apologetics please. You claimed Athanasius held a sola scriptura position, now prove it. I like the back and forth but it gets a little ridiculous. How much more evidence do you need that St. Athanasius was a Catholic bishop?

Phil P

 

[p90]

PhilVaz:

Let’s get it straight first what St. Athanasius held to be the OT canon

I wasn’t aware of any contention on this point.

Saint Athanasius 1) recognized Papal primacy over the Church, 2) recognized the authority of Ecumenical Councils, 3) recognized the validity and authority of Church Tradition, 4) taught that Mary was Mother of God, 5) taught that Mary was ever-virgin, 6) taught the real Pressence of Christ in the Eucharist, 7) taught that one could lose salvation by commiting mortal sin, etc.

…

How much more evidence do you need that St. Athanasius was a Catholic bishop?

I was discussing some of my views on the subject; I don’t remember addressing or interacting with most of the points you mention here or even being asked to interact with them. I don’t have the time or knowledge to discuss them all, but if you desire me to engage some of the evidence provided on the topics I haven’t discussed yet, I may be willing to do so.

~Matt

 

[Exporter]

AMEN DominusVosBiscum !!
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

 

[Maccabees]

If Athanasius could still remain Catholic in terms of holding a different canon until an infallible decree stated the extent of that canon, why do you criticize Martin Luther for his views on the canon? Would you say that Martin Luther’s view of the canon was Catholic until Trent because the church hadn’t settled the matter yet? I don’t mind if the Catholic position allows for Athanasius to be Catholic because of no infallible ruling on the canon (my disagreement would then be about how to determine who was and wasn’t Catholic), but I would like some consistency on your part.

Well the situations really are not comparable here. Athanasius was a loyal son of the church who died a catholic in good standing so much so that he was canonized by the church as a saint. Any theoligical rift between him and the church during his lifetime would have made that impossible. You are reading into history a conflict that didn’t exist Athanasius never proposed his list as dogma nor did he deny other list as being valid he simply list the books of the bible and their standing within the canon in his dioceese. Other parts of the world differed in their canon. Don’t you find it weird that he has rather a uniqe canon neither found in catholcism or protestants Bibles it was his local canon it included Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah and Bel and the Dragon those are part of his OT. He ommited Esther which is in both catholic and protestant Bibles today. He did say that the dueterocanicals were inspired but did not give them the honor of protocanonical those he thught were also accepted by the Jews. Also you forget there was no Council at the Time of Athanasius list it was written in 367 AD that was well before the Councils of Hippo and Carthage and well before those Councils were approved by the Entire Western Church when it ratifed by Pope Innocent I in 405 AD the canon was the 73 book canon which closed the canon of the Bible for the western church. That was until Luther was making his noise 1100 years later. There was some question as to de fide ranking of the canon Trent closed it to that status to cloose any loopholes but of course Luther wouldn’t accept the authority of a de fide teaching anyway. What Trent did is refer to the ratification of Pope Innocent I and the tradition of Hippo, Carthage and Florence as all coming to the same conclusion the larger 73 book canon. The teaching was right and the same all along Luther like the lawyer he wanted to be was looking for loopholes but the church teaching was constant thus no reason to change something that did not need changing. Considering Athanasius died in 373 and the canon of the early church wasn’t closed until 405 AD for everybody but the most liberal clery. Yup Luther was liberal in that he didn’t accept teaching that was thought binding by most everyone else.
Your argument has no validation several bishops throught the church’s early history made list of inspired books
Melito of Sardis, St Irenaeus, Eusebius none agreed with Athanasius or the current catholic church nor the current protestant canon heck they didn’t agree with each other. Why because unlike your false presumption the Bible does not have an inspired list of contents it did not fall out of the sky with all the books intact. I know this is a very uncomfortable thought but the canon developed over time becuase it was a developing tradition within the church. That is not to say the disputed books were not the Word of God when they were written but it is to day it took the church time and discernment to weight the evidence which often times was not unanimous. In fact when the canon was first proposed by Pope Damasus in 382 AD the proposal included over 120 all but 73 were rejected.

 

[chipusa]

“‘The great Athanasius in his sermon to the newly baptized says this:’ You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘And again:’ Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected.”,

-"Sermon to the Newly Baptized" ante 373 A.D.,

Yeah, every great Prostestant I know says this kinda stuff daily. Sheesh!

 

[jimmy]

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.

He could only be Catholic if you consider that he said this,

O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all. O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides. Should I compare you to the fertile earth and its fruits? You surpass them, for it is written: “The earth is my footstool” (Is 66:1). But you carry within you the feet, the head, and the entire body of the perfect God.

If I say that heaven is exalted, yet it does not equal you, for it is written: “Heaven is my throne” (ibid.), while you are God’s place of repose. If I say that the angels and archangels are great—but you aregreater than them all, for the angels and archangels serve with trembling the One who dwells in your womb, and they dare not speak in his presence, while you speak to him freely.

If we say that the cherubim are great, you are greater than they, for the cherubim carry the throne of God (cf. Ps 80:1; 99:1), while you hold God in your hands. If we say that the seraphim are great, you are greater than them all, for the seraphim cover their faces with their wings (cf. Is 6:2), unable to look upon the perfect glory, while you not only gaze upon his face but caress it and offer your breasts to his holy mouth….

As for Eve, she is the mother of the dead, “for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22). Eve took from the tree and made her husband eat of it along with her. And so they ate of that tree of which God had told them: “The day you eat of it, you shall die” (Gen 2:17). Eve took from it, ate some of it, and gave some to her husband with her. He ate of it, and he died.

In you, instead, O wise Virgin, dwells the Son of God: he, that is, who is the tree of life. Truly he has given us his body, and we have eaten of it. That is how life came to all, and all have come to life by the mercy of God, your beloved Son. That is why your spirit is full of joy in God your Savior!

St. Athanasius, *Fourth Century Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, ed. T. Lefort, in Le Muséon 71 (1958): 216-217.

 

[JOHNYJ]

Saint Athanasius ! was a Father of the church , a Saint and a defendder of the Faith against heresy ! So lets quit with the baloney !