Posted on 02/07/2006 5:02:07 AM PST by HarleyD
No. Your posts are a confused attempt to show that Athanasius' love of Scripture is Sola Scriptura. You are confusing the difference between "formal sufficiency"(the notion that Scripture stands alone -- Sola Scriptura), which is denied by all the Church Fathers without exception; and "material sufficiency" (that Scripture contains all the basic "material" of divine revelation), which is affirmed by most in the historic Church.
The following is what SAINT Athanasius wrote on the subject:
"The confession arrived at Nicaea was, we say, more SUFFICIENT and ENOUGH BY ITSELF, for the subversion of all irreligious heresy, and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church" Ad Afros 1
"But the WORD OF THE LORD which came THROUGH the Ecumenical Synod at Nicaea, abides forever" Ad Afros 2
"...forcing on the divine oracles a misinterpretation according to their [the heretics] OWN PRIVATE sense" Orat 1,37
"...that He was not before that time, but is wholly man by nature and nothing more. But this is NO sentiment of the CHURCH, but of the Samosatene and of the present Jews..." Orat 1,38
"This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, a VERY ECCLESIASTICAL sense." Orat 1,44
"Who heard in his FIRST CATECHISING, that God has a Son and has made all things by His proper Word, BUT understood it in THAT SENSE in which we now mean it? Who on the rise of this odious heresy of the Arians, was not startled at what he heard, as strange" Orat 2,34
"However here too they (Arians) introduce their private fictions, and contend that the Son and the Father are not in such wise 'one,' or 'like,' as the CHURCH preaches, but as they themselves would have it" Orat 3,10
"If we now consider the OBJECT 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 OBJECT, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think" Orat 3,28
"Let us, retaining the GENERAL SCOPE of the faith, acknowledge that what they interpret ill, has a RIGHT interpretation" Orat 3,35
"Had Christ enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognized the ECCLESIASTICAL SCOPE as an ANCHOR for the faith, they would NOT have made SHIPWRECK of the faith..." Orat 3,58
"We are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the Fathers hold this." Epis 59
"But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and TRADITION of the FATHERS, being confirmed both by the New Testament and the Old." Epis 60
"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
"Scarcely, however, did they begin to speak, when they were condemned, and one differed from another; then perceiving the straits in which their heresy lay, they remained dumb, and by their silence confessed the disgrace which came upon their heterodoxy. On this the Bishops, having negatived the terms they had invented, published against them the SOUND and ECCLESIASTICAL faith....And what is strange indeed, Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, who had denied the day before, but afterward subscribed, sent to his Church a letter, saying that this was the CHURCH'S faith and the TRADITION of the FATHERS" De Decretis 3
"Are they not then committing a crime in their very thought to gainsay so GREAT and ECUMENICAL a Council?" De Decretis 4
"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...Thus the Greeks, as not witnessing to the SAME doctrines, but quarreling one with another, have no truth of teaching; but the holy and veritable HERALDS OF TRUTH AGREE TOGETHER, and do not differ...preaching the same Word harmoniously" De Decretis 4
"...and it is seemingly and most irreligious when Scripture contains such images, to form ideas concerning our Lord from others which are neither in Scripture, nor have any religious bearing. THEREFORE let them tell us FROM WHAT TEACHER OR BY WHAT TRADITION they derived these notions concerning the Savior?...But they seem to me to have a wrong understanding of this passage also; for it has a RELIGIOUS and VERY ORTHODOX sense, which had they understood, they would not have blasphemed the Lord of glory" De Decretis 13
"...and in dizziness about TRUTH, are full set upon accusing the COUNCIL, let them tell us what are the Scriptures from what they have learned, or WHO is the SAINT by whom they have BEEN TAUGHT..." De Decretis 18
"MUST needs hold and intend the decisions of the Council, suitably regarding them to signify the relation of the RADIANCE to the LIGHT, and FROM THENCE gaining the illustration TO THE TRUTH" De Decretis 20
"We are PROVING that THIS view has been TRANSMITTED from FATHER to FATHER, but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many FATHERS CAN YE ASSIGN to your phrases? Not one of the understandings and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this IRRELIGION, and now persuades you to slander the ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, for committing to writing, not YOUR doctrines, but that which from the BEGINNING those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us. For the faith which the COUNCIL has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the BLESSED FATHERS so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy..." De Decretis 27
"...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
"Such then, as we confess and believe, being the SENSE of the FATHERS..." De Synodis 48
"...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
"Of course, the holy Scriptures, divinely inspired are self-sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. But there are also numerous works composed for this purpose by blessed TEACHERS. The ONE WHO READS THEM will UNDERSTAND the INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures AND will be ABLE to GAIN knowledge he desires" C. Gentes 1
"But the sectaries, who have fallen away from the TEACHING of the CHURCH, and made SHIPWRECK concerning the faith" C. Gentes 6
"But that the soul is made immortal is a further point in the CHURCH'S TEACHING which you must know..." C. Gentes 33
"But what is also to the point, let us note that the very TRADITION, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and PRESERVED by the FATHERS. On THIS the Church was founded; and if anyone departs from THIS, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian." Ad Serapion 1,28
The preceding quotes from St. Athanasius compiled from http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num1.htm
Apparently, St. Athanasius was not a Protestant...
Regards
If all else fails and you find you cannot argue your point, make ridiculous personal attacks. Apparently, you are discovering that you can't defend the Protestant tradition of Bible alone, one that moves people AWAY from the Word of God - and condemned by Christ in Mark 7...
Regards
Yours (at#20&30):
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be *perfect*, *thoroughly* furnished unto *all* good works. (II Timothy 3:16-17)
Douay/Rheims-Challoner:
All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice; that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work. (II Timothy 3:16-17)
It's more like; the official rules of Major League Baseball are given by The Office of the Commissioner, and are profitable for the authoritative, prescribed conduct of the game, for correction, for instruction, for training in the game, that the umpire might be complete, fully equipped for every good call.
Cordially,
I'm not sure you've hit the home run ball here. Are you suggesting that all an umpire needs is a rule book?
Regardless, this is something you are bringing to the sentence, not something inherently to be found in the words itself.
SD
Last year. Gone but not forgotten.
To my knowledge, you never bait. You debate aggressively, to be sure, and you definately stake out a position and defend it, but your honesty and integrety is unquestioned.
The doctrine that Holy Scripture is Infallible, by its nature, represents a "Catch-22" against the Romanist dogma of Prima Scriptura.
I actually am not entirely sure what you mean. Strictly speaking, there is no inherent contradiction between Biblical infallibilty and the Catholic reliance upon tradition to interpret that infallible Scripture. (A contradiction arises only if Catholic tradition disagrees with the teachings of Infallible Scripture.)
But I don't see the relevance of this question: I've never affirmed prima scriptura; rather, I've claimed that Scripture can only be properly interpreted (i.e., infallibly interpreted) through the lens of the early traditions roughly contemporary to them. There's a world of difference between that and elevating Tradition to the level of Scripture. In the end, that is nothing more than the "historical" aspect of the grammatical-historical hermaneutical method that Protestant theologians value.
Literacy was much more prevalent in Europe before the Roman Church, which suppressed literacy for the commoner, came into power.
In the Eastern Orthodox areas where literacy was encouraged, many more common people were able to read the Bible and texts were numerous. Bibles were so common in that area that the EO Church, which believed the book of Revelations was written expressly for the church, excluded it from the Bible so that people would not have access to it.
SD
Catholics don't "elevate" Tradition to the level of Scripture - although we do recognize that both come from the same source, God. However, teachings of Apostolic Tradition are often more difficult to ascertain and require more evidence - Scripture is written and often simple enough, when coordinated with other Scriptures (to be called an Apostolic Tradition requires more unanimous affirmations from others). But Tradition is not considered "inspired" by God or "inerrant". Tradition falls into several classes, some being merely disciplines (like what the priest wears) and is not pertinent to salvation.
Tradition is most important in READING Scriptures with the mind of the first Christians. It is difficult enough to figure out what our own Constitution means with a Supreme Court, the Body tasked with interpretating it. Fortunately, the Church is guided by the Spirit. Who knows what we'd believe if God wasn't preventing the Church from wandering off into error on the Deposit of the Faith.
Regards
It would seem appropriate that one should be thoroughly familiar with the official pronouncements of the faith of the person being replied to, in order to avoid misrepresenting that faith, and creating a straw man. "Formal sufficiency" is a distinction introduced by you here, and foreign to any Protestant definition of Sola Scriptura. Am I to understand that with your formal/material distinction you reject the partim-partim view of Trent?
Cordially,
I will read this later. Even though I am Catholic I often refer Protestant's who want a good apologetic for the Trinity and other Christian teachings to Christian Research's website. I also highly recommend Walter Martin's " Kingdom of The Cults" to anyone who has questions about cults.
I disagree with some of the Theology but I appreciate that the tone of discussion is always civil.
It is a stark reminder to me that just as Muslims are united by their common anger and hatred, we Christians must be united by our common love and desire for the Lord.
Well, the home plate umpire better have a chest protector, but it is the rule book that is authoritative, and under which the umpire works. The lime analogy is grammatically correct, but it also brings things to the sentence that are not inherent in the words itself, and leaves out things that are inherent.
Cordially,
Thank you. Gramatically this sentence does not mean that the rule book is sufficient to fully equip the umpire. Only that it is necessary.
Making the sentence about the Bible doesn't change what the words and sentence structure means, unless you already believe so. Quoting this as "proof" of sola Scriptura is balderdash.
The verse says the Bible is necessary, and no Catholic will disagree with you on that. It does not say it is sufficient.
SD
Can we presume that the umpire in question is familiar with baseball in the first place before he tries to interpret what is a strike or a foul ball?
Regards
But is the New Testament a rule book? That idea certainly goes against what Paul said against "the Law." Paul is not even much interested in the teachings of Our Lord, which play such a big role in the Gospels. "His" Gospel has a very diffeent focus.
And yet Annalex told us days ago that "Christian mysticism is as important as Christian Scripture."
I personally appreciate frank discussion of differences in civil discussions. Unfortunately I'm a little busy today to comment on most of the posts.
As the author states I wouldn't classify the Roman Catholic Church as a "cult". However I believe the synergistic paradigm of the Roman Catholic Church has introduced grave errors into its theology just as it is introducing errors into many Protestant churches. But people have heard me harp on this chestnut for a while now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.