St. Athanasius and Sacred Tradition Some advocates of sola Scriptura believe that tradition, according to the Athanasius, is nothing more than something derived from Scripture. In other words, they equate tradition with Scripture; thereby, downplaying the authority of Sacred Tradition. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Athanasius for the most part equated the word tradition with the teachings and doctrines given to the Church by Christ and His Apostles. These doctrines have been handed down to the Church to subsequent generations through its the various ministrations. For Athanasius these included: preaching, liturgy, catechesis, faith of the Christian people, the ecclesiastical scope/object, ecumenical belief, faith of the Fathers etc. There are a few places where Athanasius equates tradition w/ Scripture itself ('While the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, 'Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh; 'Epistle 60:6); however, for the majority of his writings he applies tradition as a body of teachings which have come down from the Apostles via the life and practice of the Church; as such, they are harmonious and complementary with Scripture. That is why you'll find citations from Athanasius which finds Tradition harmonious w/ Scripture and visa-versa; which is different than saying Tradition is derived from Scripture. The reason Scripture and Tradition are harmonious is that both are derived from the same source -- Christ and His Apostles. For example in his letter to Serapion, after he cites several passages from Scripture in support of the Holy Spirit's deity, he writes: "But, beyond these sayings" To Serapion 1:28 According to Athanasius, These sayings are the previous Scripture passages. Then Athanasius continues the contrast: "Let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached and the Fathers kept." To Serapion 1:28 A couple things to note here. First, there is a clear distinction between Scripture ('these sayings') and tradition. According to Athanasius, tradition are the teachings inherited by the Church which were transmitted by Christ and His Apostles and preserved by the Fathers. Here and in most places in Athanasius' writings, Scripture and tradition are two different entities. However, both are apostolic in origin, both transmit the faith of the Church and both are preserved/kept by the Church. The primary difference between Scripture and tradition is the medium by which the faith is transmitted. Scripture by way of writing and tradition by way of the life and practice of the Church (catechesis, general faith of the Church, liturgy, Fathers, preaching etc.) Additionally, proponents of sola Scripture therefore make the misguided conclusion that Tradition is not a substantive coordinate authority alongside Scripture. "But after him 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 2:6 No commentary required, as Athanasius has refuted the novel idea that tradition is merely teaching derived soley from Scripture. Advocates of sola Scripture make the charge that Catholics are anachronistic in their belief of the tripartite rule of faith. In my honest opinion, sola Scriptura advocates have read Athanasius, but have not understood him. In fact, Athanasius interpretation of Scripture is ruled by the Church's traditional doctrines. Under any other premise, Athanasius would seem to argue illogically. Commenting on the word "made" in "Who was faithful to Him that made Him" Heb 3:2, Athanasius writes: "For nature and truth draw their meaning to themselves. This being so, when persons ask whether the Lord is a creature or work, it is proper to ask them this first, whether He is Son and Word and Wisdom." Dis. Against Arians 2:4-5 In other words, the true nature of Christ is determined by the truth expressed by traditional doctrine of the Incarnation! Since, the Arians rejected this traditional doctrine of the Church, they interpreted Scripture to their own destruction and made shipwreck of their faith. In other words, if one holds onto the tradition of the Incarnation then one will readily interpret the word "made" to mean divine generation despite its prima facie meaning! A few paragraphs before, Athanasius makes the same point: "[L]et them not question about the [Scriptural]terms, as I said before, which the sacred writers use of the Word Himself, viz. not 'to Him that begat Him,' but 'to Him that made Him;' for while it is confessed what His nature is, what word is used in such instances need raise no question. For terms do not disparage His Nature; rather that Nature draws to Itself those terms and changes them." Dis. Against Arians 2:3 Despite the prima facie meaning of the word "made", the traditional doctrine of the Incarnation obliges him to interpret the text to mean divine generation. In other words, the tradition of the Incarnation, a doctrine that is confessed in the Church and dogmatizes the true nature of Christ, changes the prima facie meaning of the word "made"! In another example, Athanasius writes: "[T]he Arians; for looking at what is human in the Saviour, they have judged Him a creature ... But for them, learn they however tardily, that 'the Word became Flesh;' " Dis. Against Arians 3:35 Here would have been an ideal place for Athanasius to affirm the Incarnation on the word of Scripture without the aid of Tradition. However, he continues by stating that he does NOT rely on the force of this Scripture passage alone: "Let us, retaining the general scope of the faith, acknowledge that what they interpret ill, has a right interpretation." Dis. Against Arians 3:35 Athanasius affirms there is a tradition that is substantive, authoritative and independent as to supply him with the orthodox understanding of Scripture. Again Athanasius writes: "What they[Arians] now allege from the Gospels they certainly give unsound interpretation, we may easily see..." Dis. Against Arians 2:28 Here's a perfect place for Athanasius to say, "we may easily see if we look ONLY to the Scripture themselves apart from any Church tradition"; however, Athanasius in contrast to words of a proponent of sola Scriptura actually writes: "we may see easily, if we now consider the scope 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 scope, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think." Dis. Against Arians 3:28 What is Athanasius advocating as a rule to be applied to a reading of Scripture without which the Arians have wandered from the truth? Clearly it is not Scripture itself, but tradition as expressed in the ecumenical faith of the Catholic people! Let's cut to the chase -- why don't advocates of sola Scriptura find one(1) single passage, just one now, from the corpus of Athanasius' writings where Athanasius pits his understanding of Scripture up against the Church's Tradition! The reason you will not find one is that the Church's Tradition comes from Christ and His Apostles. Hence, Athanasius treats both authorities as complementary and harmonious. That is why you will find Athanasius complement one with the other - he validates Tradition with Scripture and Scripture with Tradition. He doesn't pit one against the other, rather he upholds both authorities. Catholics, as does Athanasius, affirm that some passages in Scripture are clear at first glance and require no complementary authority. However, perspicuity of various passages is dependent on the eye of the beholder - some passages are clear for some while these same passage may be obscure for others. However, in the final analysis, Catholics and Athanasius affirm that one's understanding of the Sacred Text is ruled by the ecclesiastical tradition of the Church no matter how perspicuous a word, term, or passage in Scripture may be to the contrary. Interestingly, the few bishops who sided with Arius did not attempt to find an uninterrupted traditional pedigree in their favor. Athanasius believed that Arianism was the first heresy to appeal to a private understanding of Sacred Scripture: "Of all other heresies which have departed from the truth it is acknowledged that they have but devised a madness, and their irreligiousness has long since become notorious to all men...But, whereas one heresy, and that the last, which has now risen as harbinger of Antichrist, the Arian, as it is called, considering that other heresies, her elder sisters, have been openly proscribed, in her craft and cunning, affects to array herself in Scripture language, like her father the devil..." Dis. Against Arians, 1:1 JND Kelly(a non-Catholic patristic scholar) who summarizes this time period writes: "If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles, which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness." Early Christian Doctrines, 48 In the end, Athanasius realized, as did the Nicene Fathers, that both Catholics and Arians could appeal to Scripture for their belief; however, only Catholics could proof their orthodoxy by an appeal to tradition: "See, 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 understanding and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy" Defense of the Nicene Definition, 27(A.D. 355),in NPNF2,IV:168 This text may downloaded and viewed for private reading only. This text may not be used by another Web site or published, electronically or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder. Joseph A. Gallegos © 2000 All Rights Reserved.