Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Mrs. Don-o

“”It was good enough for Athanasius,
and it’s good enough for me!””


Athanasius on the Scriptures as the sole rule of faith:

“If then ye are the disciples of the Gospel, speak not unrighteousness against God, but walk in the things that are written. But if you will speak any-thing besides that which is written, why do you contend with us, who are determined neither to hear nor to speak any thing but that which is written? The Lord himself says, If ye continue in my word, ye are truly free.” — Concerning the Incarnation of Christ.

“For the holy and divinely inspired Scriptures are of themselves sufficient for the discovery of divine truth.” — -Speech against the Gentiles.

Athanasius on the canon of the scriptures:

“All the Scriptures of us Christians are inspired. And there are riot innumerable books, but on the contrary the books are defined and included in a canon, and these are the books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judge*, Ruth, the first and second of Kings, the third and fourth of Kings, the first and second of Chronicles, the first and second of Ezra, the Psalter of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Twelve Prophets, Amos, Micaiah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habukkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah, Malachi. These twelve are in one book. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. There are other books of the Old Testament be sides these, which are not canonical... The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias. These are not canonical.”— Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures.

Against Transubstantiation

“I saw an example of this in the Gospel of John, where treating concerning the eating of his body, and seeing many offended there by, he said, “Does this offend you, what if ye shall see the Son of man ascend where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words which I speak unto you, they are spirit and life.” He spake both of the spirit and the flesh, and made a distinction between his spirit and flesh, that not only believing in what was visible to their eyes, but also in his invisible nature, they might learn that the things which he said were not carnal, but spiritual: for, for how many would his body have sufficed for meat that it should become the nourishment of the whole world? For this reason, therefore, he mentions the Son of man’s ascension into heaven that he might draw them from the corporeal sense, and that they might understand, that the flesh he spoke of was heavenly nourishment and spiritual food given to them from above. For the words which I speak unto you, they are spirit and life. As if he had said, This my body which is shown to you and is given for the world, shall be given as food, so as to be imparted spiritually within each, and to become to each a safe guard against the resurrection of eternal life.” — Upon that passage of the Gospel, “ Whosoever shall say.”

If it’s good enough for Athanasius, it’s good enough for me!!


91 posted on 04/13/2013 3:41:31 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]


To: Greetings_Puny_Humans; don-o; Salvation; MarkBsnr
Greetings, Greetings!

Oh, this is excellent, and illustrates exactly why Athanasius is such a champion of the Tradition.

He participated in the Council of Nicaea and vigorously defended the validity and authority of its doctrines: thus he was a defender of Sacred Tradition.

He was the author of the Athanasian Creed (Link), a basic statement of the Catholic faith (as he says in its first line)(tip'o'the hat to the Orthodox as well); he defended the Incarnation and the Trinity; thus he was a contributor to the Sacred Tradition.

And as Bishop of Alexandria, he had received his ordained ministry as a hierarchical successor to the Apostles by the Sacrament of Holy Orders; he officiated at the Sacred Liturgies of the Church; he ministered the Sacraments to his flock; he was in communion with the other Orthodox Patriarchs and protected by the Popes. In all these ways-- hierarchical, liturgical, sacramental, and ecclesiastical (including being in union with the the Bishop of Rome) he was a living link of the Sacred Tradition.

That somebody would say he was a proponent of "Sola Scriptura"--- in the Protestant sense--- shows a basic exegetical error in interpreting his writings.

Athanasius, as a teacher of the Catholic Faith, would accept no doctrine which was contrary to Scripture. To that, we all agree: that's his point. He is not saying there can be no Councils, no Creeds, no Popes, no developments of doctrine and worship which further extend and apply the truths of Scripture.

If that were the case, it would make nonsense of his entire life's work. As I illustrated above, Athanasius received, developed, defended, and lived this very same Tradition of which we speak: a Tradition which is at every point one with the truths of Scripture.

Thus, Athanasius' whole life tells us that Sola Traditio is inseparable from Sola Scriptura: in the Orthodox and Catholic sense that it there is no part of Tradition which is not derived from, or which is contradicted by, Scripture.


On the Eucharist It is pure nonsense to interpret Athanasius' writings as denying the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The section you quoted simply sets aside the idea that the Eucharist is a "physiological" (he says "carnal" and "corporeal") body. This is flat-out obvious.

A "carnal" or "corporeal" body means a body that weighs, say, 150-220 pounds, that is composed of cells, tissues, organs, and systems, that maintains an internal temperature of 98-99o F., that carries out continuous cardiovascular, respiratory and metabolic functions, etc.

Obviously the consecrated Elements of the Eucharist are not physiologically the same as a carnal body: Christ's, or anybody else's. (That's why Athanasius comments, "How many would his body have sufficed for meat that it should become the nourishment of the whole world?" In other words, if this were just a matter of chowing down on Christ's mortal remains, it might have been food for maybe a couple dozen cannibals, but not for the millons who in fact receive Him.)

The Eucharistic Body of the Lord has none of the visible, tangible, or measurable characteristic of a physiological body. It is, nevertheless, Christ's true Body, as Athanasius says:

"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."

"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."

Athanasius of Alexandria -
"Sermon to the Newly Baptized" 373 A.D.

Thank you so much for giving me the pleasure of sharing this Sacred Tradition defended and lived so profoundly by the great Athanasius.
92 posted on 04/13/2013 5:47:37 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (" If they refuse to listen even to the Church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson