Posted on 08/07/2009 5:46:07 AM PDT by Ottofire
Did Athanasius Have Any Right?
08/06/2009 - James Swan
It's sometimes argued the Reformers didn't have the right to call for the reform of the Roman church. How could a small minority challenge the authority of the established majority? Of course, there are many nuances and rabbit trails to meander down when one gets into this discussion- like did the reformers have miracles to prove their reform efforts? or who left who: did the reformers leave, or were they expelled? I'd like to bypass those topics for a bit, and apply what I'll dub, the rule of consistency.
Let's assume that the Reformers were wrong to go against the established church. The majority position was the Roman position at the time of the Reformation. What then do we do with Athanasius? I recently re-read Dr. White's article, What Really Happened at Nicea? The section most pertinent to this is about half way down entitled, "The Aftermath." Dr. White explains:
Modern Christians often have the impression that ancient councils held absolute sway, and when they made "the decision," the controversy ended. This is not true. Though Nicea is seen as one of the greatest of the councils, it had to fight hard for acceptance. The basis of its final victory was not the power of politics, nor the endorsement of established religion. There was one reason the Nicene definition prevailed: its fidelity to the testimony of the Scriptures.
During the six decades between the Council of Nicea and the Council of Constantinople in 381, Arianism experienced many victories. There were periods where Arian bishops constituted the majority of the visible ecclesiastical hierarchy. Primarily through the force of political power, Arian sympathizers soon took to undoing the condemnation of Arius and his theology. Eusebius of Nicomedia and others attempted to overturn Nicea, and for a number of decades it looked as if they might succeed. Constantine adopted a compromising position under the influence of various sources, including Eusebius of Caesarea and a politically worded "confession" from Arius. Constantine put little stock in the definition of Nicea itself: he was a politician to the last. Upon his death, his second son Constantius ruled in the East, and he gave great aid and comfort to Arianism. United by their rejection of the homoousion, semi-Arians and Arians worked to unseat a common enemy, almost always proceeding with political power on their side.
Under Constantius, council after council met in this location or that. So furious was the activity that one commentator wrote of the time, "The highways were covered with galloping bishops." Most importantly, regional councils meeting at Ariminum, Seleucia, and Sirmium presented Arian and semi-Arian creeds, and many leaders were coerced into subscribing to them. Even Liberius, bishop of Rome, having been banished from his see (position as bishop) and longing to return, was persuaded to give in and compromise on the matter.
During the course of the decades following Nicea, Athanasius, who had become bishop of Alexandria shortly after the council, was removed from his see five times, once by force of 5,000 soldiers coming in the front door while he escaped out the back! Hosius, now nearly 100 years old, was likewise forced by imperial threats to compromise and give place to Arian ideas. At the end of the sixth decade of the century, it looked as if Nicea would be defeated. Jerome would later describe this moment in history as the time when "the whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian."
Yet, in the midst of this darkness, a lone voice remained strong. Arguing from Scripture, fearlessly reproaching error, writing from refuge in the desert, along the Nile, or in the crowded suburbs around Alexandria, Athanasius continued the fight. His unwillingness to give place- even when banished by the Emperor, disfellowshipped by the established church, and condemned by local councils and bishops alike- gave rise to the phrase, Athanasius contra mundum: "Athanasius against the world." Convinced that Scripture is "sufficient above all things," Athanasius acted as a true "Protestant" in his day. Athanasius protested against the consensus opinion of the established church, and did so because he was compelled by scriptural authority. Athanasius would have understood, on some of those long, lonely days of exile, what Wycliffe meant a thousand years later: "If we had a hundred popes, and if all the friars were cardinals, to the law of the gospel we should bow, more than all this multitude."
Movements that depend on political favor (rather than God's truth) eventually die, and this was true of Arianism. As soon as it looked as if the Arians had consolidated their hold on the Empire, they turned to internal fighting and quite literally destroyed each other. They had no one like a faithful Athanasius, and it was not long before the tide turned against them. By A.D. 381, the Council of Constantinople could meet and reaffirm, without hesitancy, the Nicene faith, complete with the homoousious clause. The full deity of Christ was affirmed, not because Nicea had said so, but because God had revealed it to be so. Nicea's authority rested upon the solid foundation of Scripture. A century after Nicea, we find the great bishop of Hippo, Augustine, writing to Maximin, an Arian, and saying: "I must not press the authority of Nicea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other; but let us come to ground that is common to both- the testimony of the Holy Scriptures."
I often wonder about those who attack the Reformers for standing against the majority, and how they explain Athanasius. If we were to have witnessed Athanasius up close, would it appear that he was standing against the church? By what authority did he do so? Did he have miracles to back up his "mission"? Did he have "ordinary" or "extraordinary" authority to stand against the majority? On what basis, during the time period in which he lived, could one have judged him to be a true or false reformer?
People rebel against authority all the time, be they Catholic or Protestant. The real question: is their rebellion supported by the infallible source of truth, the Sacred Scriptures? Consider my Protestant friends, the recent Harold Camping debate shows, particularly Day 2. The logic and exegesis of the Bible used by Mr. Camping was outrageous: it was pure gnosticism. We don't have to appeal to an infallible church or council to deem Mr. Camping heretical. The Bible itself, if allowed to be read like any document should be read, shows that Mr. Camping is in dire error.
Before you balk at that statement my Catholic friends, consider Jimmy Akin's recent comment: "this isn't exegetical rocket science." Akin evaluated the errors of his priests based on.... Scripture. The Bible, according to Akin is clear enough to put his priests in their place. One has to admit, there are plenty of clear passages in the Bible. For some Roman Catholics, they give off the impression that the Bible must be so cryptic, confusing, and difficult, that none of us could ever understand any of it without being infallible. Just think of how difficult it is to understand such verses like Acts 3:1, "One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer- at three in the afternoon." Imagine, without an infallible understanding of this text, none of us could ever comprehend even this simple verse. I would argue, even a non-believer could exegete a verse of Scripture and comprehend a passage in a context. When the Lord chastised the Sadducees in Matthew 22, he stated they were in error because they did not know the Scriptures. He further states, "have you not read what God said to you?" (Mt. 22:31). The Lord Jesus clearly held these men responsible for knowing and understanding the Scriptures. Were the Sadducees supposed to respond, "How could we? We did not have an infallible interpreter of the Bible!"
Ultimately Athanasius, the Reformers, or whoever, are right based on whether or not their teachings are supported by the infallible sacred deposit of truth. In the blog article I cited up top, it's stated:
"It's baffling, really, how men could have just decided that sola scriptura is the only rule of Faith, then based on that alone overturn 1500 years of traditions that did not contradict the Bible. Was it really Biblically necessary to cut the number of sacraments from seven to two? Of course not. But sola scriptura gave Reformers carte blanche to interpret everything themselves and start from scratch. Beliefs and practices began to boil down to the personal insistence "I'm right!" in their interpretation of the Bible, without consulting traditions or authorities. History meant nothing anymore, and perhaps that's why you never hear modern apologists talk about whether the Reformers had the right to do what they did. There's a disconnect with and almost an impertinent disdain for history in the world today."
It isn't baffling. Athanasius like Luther, appealed to a certain standard of infallible truth by which to judge by. Take the sacraments for example. During the early centuries the church did not limit the number of sacraments to seven. There were more, or less. Some lists had less than seven, others had as many as thirty. It wasn't until the mid-13th century that the number was finally set at seven. How does one decide how many there are? From the Bible.
As to the insistence that the Reformers simply stated, "I'm right" "without consulting traditions or authorities" - this is simply historically untrue, say for someone like John Calvin. He had a decent grasp of church history. In Luther's case, he stated, "the sum of my argument is that whereas the words of men, and the use of the centuries, can be tolerated and endorsed, provided they do not conflict with the sacred Scriptures, nevertheless they do not make articles of faith, nor any necessary observances." This is a far cry from "History meant nothing anymore."
There is indeed a "disconnect" but it's not due to Protestants having "an impertinent disdain for history." I love church history, as do many of my cyber friends. The "disconnect" that I see is that Catholics cannot produce what they claim to have. If there is another infallible rule of faith besides the Scriptures that could've helped out Athanasius, where was it? Why did Athanasius have to struggle for his life against the church majority? Why did he have to argue his position from Scripture? Why couldn't he have argued from some other infallible authority?
Let's apply the rule of consistency. I have a paradigm that can explain Athanasius and the Reformers. They both had an infallible standard that they sought to be true to: the Sacred Scriptures. Can you be just as consistent my Catholic friends? Did Athanasius have any right?
07:41:31 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
>> So the church is held on it path by the laity, not those that teach the laity? <<
The difficulty with the doctrine known to us Papists as “sensuum fidelis” (sense of the faithful) is that people focus on only half of it, the “sensuum” part, and not the “fidelis” part. The Holy Spirit does guide the conscience of all faithful, so that the “top-down” hierarchy is interdependent with the “bottom-up” experience of the faithful.
But it’s not called “sensuum Joe Schmoe.” “Fidelis” refers to those who accept the authority of bible AND sacred tradition, who are in a state of grace, who reject heresy, and who strive to remain reconciled with the Holy Church.
So....
Lame-man: “We think abortion should be permitted!”
Bishop: “It is a sin”
Lame-man: “I don’t find it mentioned at all in the bible!”
Bishop: “The bible condemns murder, and abortion is murder! Pope John Paul II wrote an excellent explanation in his encyclical huma...”
Lame-man: “John Paul II? That right-wing, patriarchical, homophobic, anti-sex...”
BZZZZZZTT!!!!
Sorry, Lame-man, but you’re not part of the sensuum fidelis.
I should have added that Arian like Christological heresies persisted in the East and again in the greatest numbers within the Patriarchate of Antioch. Nestorianism (though Nestorius was Pat. of Constantinople) and Severianism spring to mind, so it certainly isn’t as if the East was free from heresy after Nicea. In fact, as a general proposition, it was the Church of Rome which was the bulwark of Christian orthodoxy against heresies which arose in the East until the 9th century at least.
bttt
“They provided scriptural references supporting the facts that the souls of the saints who departed pray on the behalf of the living, that the living can participate in the atonement of other sinners, that those who die in grace but with the stain of sin suffer temporal punishment in the afterlife (purgatory), etc.”
Do you have a reference? I’ve yet to see any Scriptures like that...
If Athanasius actually said this, I'd bet about anything that he said (c)atholic Faith...Small c...And likely he didn't say Catholic at all...Probably 'universal' faith...
And looking at what you posted as the 'Catholic Faith', minus a couple of twists and turns it is not exclusive to your religion...
Since your posted definition of Catholic Faith excludes anything about popes and focuses on the Trinity, what you describe is the Protestant Faith as well...So to claim Athanasius prescribed the Cathoic church is ridiculous...Any Trinitarian whether he be inside your religion or outside of your religion holds to these 'Christian' truths...Has nothing to do at all with 'Catholic Faith'...
You wrote:
“I guess my questions is, why did 56% of the council members believe that the biblical canon that was supposedly taught throughout church history, accepted by Hippo/Carthage and later confirmed by the Council of Florence, perhaps shouldn’t be an article of faith?”
Where are you getting your 56% from? 1) To vote against something in a procedure is not the same thing as voting against the content of the point. In other words, we know there were men who said no decrees or canons concerning papal infallibility should have been enacted by Vatican I and yet they themselves SUPPORTED THE DOCTRINE of papal infallibility. Many of them simply didn’t think it was a good time to make a formal decree on the matter. Also, when someone abstains from voting you cannot count that as a vote against the measure in any case. That’s exactly why the idea of abstaining from voting exists.
I guess it would be in bad taste to mention the Counter Reformation. Loved your post.
We’ll just end up in a debate about the interpretation of those scriptures; the relevant point is that Luther conceded the point, causing him to start removing books from the bible. The Old Testament books stayed out of Protestant bibles since then, although Luther removed portions of Daniel and Esther. The New Testament portions were restored, once Protestant apologists offered different interpretations.
You wrote:
“Since your posted definition of Catholic Faith excludes anything about popes and focuses on the Trinity, what you describe is the Protestant Faith as well”
No. Athanasius - living in a time almost 1200 years before Luther invented Protestantism - simply didn’t envision later heretics and schismatics and simply wrestled with those in his own day.
“...So to claim Athanasius prescribed the Cathoic church is ridiculous...Any Trinitarian whether he be inside your religion or outside of your religion holds to these ‘Christian’ truths...Has nothing to do at all with ‘Catholic Faith’...”
Sure it does. The Catholic faith, then and now, included a hierarchy, the Eucharist, veneration of saints, Church councils, and many other things Protestants simply cannot abide by. Protestants long ago excluded themselves from orthodox faith and practice.
>> If Athanasius actually said this, I’d bet about anything that he said (c)atholic Faith...Small c...And likely he didn’t say Catholic at all...Probably ‘universal’ faith... <<
The capitalization of Catholic only took place after there was that which was not Catholic, so the first part of what you say is true. However, the nation that ‘catholic’ merely means universal is false. If the faith is universal, how could there be dissent? Rather, what was meant was something closer to ‘objective’ or ‘consensual.’ At the time, people were applying their own interpretation of scripture to the bible, and the early ‘catholic apologists’ argued that they no authority to invent their own interpretation. Thus, the council of Nicea spoke of the church being ‘one,... catholic, and apostolic’ to describe its unity of doctrine: All Christians must share a common faith in a common doctrine.
I was quoting another fellow, but the point is this:
44% believed the canon was so clear and necessary that they voted to make it an article of the faith for Catholics. Given the incentive of the Reformation, why did 56% believe it was not important to make it an article of the faith - either by refusing to take a stand, or positively saying it was wrong?
You wrote:
“44% believed the canon was so clear and necessary that they voted to make it an article of the faith for Catholics.”
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
That is NOT what happened. The whole article shows EXACTLY that that is NOT what happened. Now here you are making the same mistake you just renounced in post #8: “Thanks for the post on Trent. I didn’t know that, and I’m guilty of unintentionally spreading the misconception.”
“Given the incentive of the Reformation, why did 56% believe it was not important to make it an article of the faith - either by refusing to take a stand, or positively saying it was wrong?”
Your question is MEANINGLESS because it is based on a misconception you yourself renounced in post #8.
Luther removed nothing from the NT. His first edition translation included ALL of accepted NT canon. His questions about canon were not unusual for the time - some years passed before the Catholic Church made a definite and binding answer (for Catholics) on canon.
The problem with Purgatory, etc is that they are not taught in either Old or New, and multiple passages in both contradict the idea. Since Purgatory is an idea as significant as Hell, the absence is deafening.
That, and most Lutheran Bibles around the world have the other books in them.
They did in the US also, until Wilson made them be removed during WWI.
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.