Monday, October 21, 2019

John C. Pontrello on Athanasius and the Arian Controversy


John Pontrello, a former Sedevacantist who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, wrote the following in response to the Dimond brothers and others within Sedevacantism who appeal to the example of Athanasius:

Objection: St. Athanasius wrote, “Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ” (Francisco Radecki and Dominic Radecki, Tumultuous Times: The Twenty General Councils of the Catholic Church and Vatican II and its Aftermath [Wange, MI: Saint Joseph’s Media, 2004], pp. 573-74). This proves that even great saints believed Sedevacantism was at least theoretically possible.

Answer: 1. For Roman Catholics a basic assumption must accompany the reading of this quote, or else St. Athanasius would be joining Dimond in denying Roman doctrines that should have been well known since the foundation of the Church. The basic assumption is that Athanasius’s understanding of “the true Church of Jesus Christ” is congruent with the Church’s indefectibility as well as the other points of doctrine . . . 2. Athanasius lived when East and West were one Church. At that time, if the concept of losing the Church of Rome, its bishop, and a large percentage of the episcopal body under the Roman Pontiff was not considered contradictory to the Church’s indefectibility, the reason is that it was not. Contrary to later Roman Catholic teaching, indefectibility of the Church was not a concept exclusive for Rome. 3. In this historical example of the spread of Arianism, “the rock” of the Catholic Church was not the papacy, as it ought to have been according to Roman Catholic teaching on the papacy. Athanasius the Great, doctor of the Church and champion of orthodoxy, was the patriarch of Alexandria and from several accounts is on record condemning the Roman pope for not upholding the faith. If the Roman pretensions of the papacy were true, one would expect the roles of the Roman pope and Athanasius during the spread of Arianism to have been reversed or at least congruent. History reveals that there were times that Rome preserved the faith when other apostolic sees lost it and other times that other apostolic sees preserved the faith when Rome lost it (John C. Pontrello, The Sedevacantist Delusion: Why Vatican II’s Clash with Sedevacantism Supports Eastern Orthodoxy [North Charleston, N.C.: CreateSpace, 2015], 60-61)

Elsewhere, under the heading of “Arianism and Indefectibility,” we read:

The Arian heresy that spread through the Church in the fourth century raises an interesting issue. The popular opinion is that Pope Liberius lost the faith during the Arian heresy has often forced Roman apologists to defend papal infallibility. Apologists argue that Liberius did not breech infallibility because he did not attempt to bind heresy on the whole Church. While that may be true, what is most often overlooked by Protestants and Roman apologists alike actually concerns the Church’s indefectibility, which property should have left the Holy See unscathed by the Arian heresy.

Interestingly it is the patriarch of Antioch, Athanasius, who is most often recognized in the East and West for having preserved the true Catholic faith against the Arians, whereas according to the doctrines of the papacy the rock of the Church should have been the Roman See. According to some popular accounts, Athanasius himself maintained that Pope Liberius consented to a heretical doctrine in order to gain his freedom from Arian captivity. Roman apologists claim that Athanasius was not in a position to know the true and that he had received misinformation, but I find it difficult to believe that Athanasius was not in a better position to know exactly who betrayed the faith than Church historians and apologists who wrote about these events long after his time. It seems unlikely that Athanasius would rashly accuse the Roman Pontiff of such a betrayal without certainty. It is one thing to bear false witness and calumniate another person and quite another to do the same against the Roman Pontiff, who, according to the Church, should have been acknowledged as the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Undoubtedly Athanasius deserves more credit for the accuracy of his information as well as the probability of his exercising extreme prudence in casting judgment on the pope. (Ibid., 195-96)

As we see, Athanasius’ teachings are not favourable towards Sedevacantism; furthermore, with respect to Roman Catholic ecclesiology itself (not Sedevacantism merely), the Arian controversy seems to show that Athanasius did not hold, even in a proto-typical manner, what would become dogma in 1870 during Vatican I about the pope.