In recent times there is a phenomenon of "Reformed" apologists hi-jacking the writings of the Early Church Fathers and coming up with revisionist interpretations of them. Lately on some of the "Reformed" blogs they have been arguing over whether or not one of Saint Athanasius' writings ("Homily of the Papyrus of Turin") is authentic or not. Be that as it may there are many of his writings that are certifiably attributed to him, and they prove that he is no friend of their heretical form of Christianity. While I am going to provide some passages from his writings It is important for anyone to go back and read the whole letters for themselves to get the general idea of the writing. Far too many "Reformed" apologists these days cut and paste quotes completely out of context. It is popular these days to quote Saint Athanasius whenever he talks about Scriptural sufficiency. They do this ignorantly thinking that Saint Athanasius is using this term in the same context that they are. Yet if you read the whole letters you can plainly see that he is writing in a completely different mindset than these "Reformers" are coming from.
Saint Athanasius has many writings dealing with various theological subjects, most in response to the Arian controversy. Here are just a few thoughts from Saint Athanasius which are completely foreign to any "Reformed" theological position, yet solidify the Catholic Church's teaching on these matters.
1. Proper authority and hierarchical construction of the Church.Saint Athanasius wrote an historical account of the Arian hersey. In it he gave a reason as to why one particular, heretical individual (Gregory at Alexandria) acted the way he did.
"And many other things he did, which exceed the power of language to describe, and which whoever should hear would think to be incredible. And the reason why he acted thus was, because he had not received
his ordination according to ecclesiastical rule, nor had been
called to be a Bishop by apostolical tradition; but had been sent out from court with military power and pomp, as one entrusted with a secular government. Wherefore he boasted rather to be the friend of Governors, than of Bishops and Monks."
Saint Athanasius also wrote to the African concerning the Arian heresy. It is very clear that Saint Athanasius held the councils, synods and the bishops of the Church, including Rome in high esteem. He also writes about the importance of oral apostolic kerygma which is passed down in the Church. This is all contrary to the "Reformers" who mock the Catholic Church's bishops, and the Councils of the Church. He writes,
"Now it would be proper to write this at greater length. But since we write to you who know, we have dictated it concisely, praying that among all the bond of peace might be preserved, and that all in the Catholic Church should say and hold the same thing. And we are not meaning to teach, but to put you in mind. Nor is it only ourselves that write, but
all the bishops of Egypt and the Libyas, some ninety in number. For we all are of one mind in this, and we always sign for one another if any chance not to be present. Such being our state of mind, since we happened to be assembled, we wrote, both to
our beloved Damasus, bishop of the Great Rome, giving an account of Auxentius who has intruded upon the church at Milan; namely that he not only shares the Arian heresy, but is also accused of many offences, which he committed with Gregory the sharer of his impiety; and while expressing our surprise that so far he has not been deposed and expelled from the Church, we thanked [Damasus] for his piety and that of those who assembled at the Great Rome, in that by expelling Ursacius and Valens, and those who hold with them, they preserved the harmony of the Catholic Church. Which we pray may be preserved also among you, and therefore entreat you not to tolerate, as we said above, those who put forward a host of synods held concerning the Faith, at Ariminum, at Sirmium, in Isauria, in Thrace, those in Constantinople, and the many irregular ones in Antioch.
But let the Faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicæa alone hold good among you, at which all the fathers, including those of the men who now are fighting against it, were present, as we said above, and signed: in order that of us too the Apostle may say, ‘Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and
as I handed the traditions to you, so ye hold them fast." (To the Bishops of Africa)
In light of Easter which is upcoming we will undoubtedly see some "Reformers" attacking the Catholic Church's celebration of Easter as they did with Christmas, claiming that the Church has no authority to mandate a day to celebrate such Feasts for the good of the faithful. Saint Athanasius wrote about this as well explaining the very nature of the Church's responsibility and authority to do so. Here we also see that Scripture is not all that is needed, but that Council's were necessary to define doctrines correctly. It is clear that Saint Athanasius' definition of Scriptural sufficiency is not the same as the "Reformers" define it.
"5. 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........Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but
if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture." (Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia)
Clearly when it comes to the construct of the Church Saint Athansius is no friend to the "Reformers", say what you will.
2. Sacred Scripture in the Church vs Sacred Scripture Outside the Church.Many "Reformers" today try and make Saint Athanasius out to be a defender of "Scripture Alone". Yet if we read Saint Athanasius honestly he never gives us any reason to believe that. In fact we can see that he believed that Sacred Scripture needed to remain within the confines of the Church along with oral apostolic kerygma to be interpreted authentically. He refers many times that they are to follow the interpretations handed on to them as handed down by the apostolic fathers. Once again the "Reformers" have no ally here, being that they continually and obstinately reject apostolic Tradition. In writing against the Arians he says,
"And
however they may write phrases out of the Scripture, endure not their writings; however they may speak the language of the orthodox, yet attend not to what they say; for they speak not with an upright mind, but putting on such language like sheeps’ clothing, in their hearts they think with Arius,
after the manner of the devil, who is the author of all heresies. For he too made use of the words of Scripture, but was put to silence by our Saviour. For if he had indeed meant them as he used them, he would not have fallen from heaven; but now having fallen through his pride, he artfully dissembles in his speech, and oftentimes maliciously endeavours to lead men astray by the subtleties and sophistries of the Gentiles. Had these expositions of theirs
proceeded from the orthodox, from such as the great Confessor Hosius, and Maximinus of Gaul,or his successor or from such as Philogonius and Eustathius, Bishops of the East , or Julius and Liberius of Rome, or Cyriacus of Mœsia, or Pistus and Aristæus of Greece, or Silvester and Protogenes of Dacia, or Leontius and Eupsychius of Cappadocia, or Cæcilianus of Africa, or Eustorgius of Italy, or Capito of Sicily, or Macarius of Jerusalem, or Alexander of Constantinople, or Pæderos of Heraclea, or those great Bishops Meletius, Basil, and Longianus, and the rest from Armenia and Pontus, or Lupus and Amphion from Cilicia, or James and the rest from Mesopotamia, or our own blessed Alexander, with others of the same opinions as these;—there would then have been nothing to suspect in their statements,
for the character of apostolical men is sincere and incapable of fraud."
3. Papal AuthorityAlthough we cannot deduce the extent of authority the Pope had from Athanasius' writings, we can tell that the Pope had some sort of authority in the Church since Athanasius was summoned by him to give an account of a false accusation leveled against him. This is also a pie in the face of modern "Reformed" apologists who rewrite history claiming that the Bishop of Rome had no authority on the early Church.
""Athanasius, knowing their plot, retired, and betook himself to the West. For to the Bishop of Rome (Julius was then the Shepherd of that Church) the Eusebians had sent the false accusations which they had put together against Athanasius. And he,
following the laws of the Church, both ordered them to repair to Rome, and also summoned the divine Athanasius to judgment. And he, for his part, started at once on receiving the call; but they who had made up the story did not go to Rome, knowing that it would be easy to see through their falsehood." Theodoret, (H.E. ii, 3)
These are just a few examples that prove that the "Reformers" are not friends of Saint Athanasius, but they are his sworn enemies. They reject the very substance of the Church which he swears by in his letters. The "Reformers" take his writings and dissect them like they do the Scriptures, as if they are a science project under a microscope never taking them into proper focus in light of the text or substance that surrounds them. Just as they take a passage of Sacred Scripture and pull it out and separate them from their surrounding texts as a whole, they do so with Saints like Athanasius, who cannot be read and understood outside of the context for which he was intending to write. They think that these Fathers were writing these texts for future controversialists like themselves when they were actually dealing mostly with specific situations. By understanding those situations we can deduct certain principals the author is using to substantiate his position. That is what the Church does so well. The Church lived in these times and passes on what she has taught through the ages. This is something that the Reformers" will never have. Please go through these texts for yourselves and read them. You too will realize that Saint Athanasius is certainly no friend to these "Reformers".
Sources: (
You can find them all at the Ethereal Library online.)
To the Bishops of Africa
To the Bishops of Egypt
History of the Arians
Discourses Against the Arians
Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia
