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.
