Modern Ariansim

[Catholic4Jesus]

Traditionalists constantly compare their position against Vatican II to the position of St. Athanasius in the 3rd Century. They compare Archbishop Lefebvre and other Traditionalist figures being excommunicated for rejecting VII comparable to St. Athanasius being excommunicated for rejecting Arianism. Many of them claim that there have been several times in history where we’ve never had a pope but rather anti-popes during those certain periods because they fell into heresy. They believe that most of the modern-day clergy have fallen away because they accept the Vatican II “hereises” of episcopal collegiality, inter-religious dialogue, ecumenism, religious freedom, etc and say that their position is logical because at the time of St. Athanasius, most of the bishops, priests (and even the pope himself who was supposedly an anti-pope) had fallen away because they accepted the heresy of Arianism.

What really happened during the time of Arianism? Is the Traditionalist position valid because it supposedly happened in the past?

 

[1AugustSon7]

What really happened during the time of Arianism? Is the Traditionalist position valid because it supposedly happened in the past?

Second question first: no, not of necessity.

Arianism was an attempt to rationalize the mystery of the incarnation. I don’t know of any modern monolithic efforts from within the Church today that are guilty of trying to rationalize Catholic mysteries, such that the essential truth and mystery is or becomes lost. If anything, it’s the opposite, which requires a different approach, of course: different diseases require different medicines.

Traditionalism varies. A lot of Traditionalism is an attempt to secure from the Catholic religion what all religions try to, with varying success, provide: identity and stability. Every tradition allows us to give sense, stability and order to an otherwise seemingly completely non-sensical, unstable and constantly changing world; they are reprieves from the apparently irresistible onslaught of change, and the dictatorship of pragmatism and relativism.

 

[Lormar]

I think that Catholic4Jesus may be referring to the fact that many traditionals within the SSPX circles compare Archbishop Lefebvre to St. Athanasius. They say that St. Athanasius was the only bishop that opposed the Arian bishops and heresy at that time and was exiled from the Church for adhering to the truth; so they say that Archbishop Lefebvre is a modern day Athanasius for opposing modernism.

 

[dshix]

Traditionalists constantly compare their position against Vatican II to the position of St. Athanasius in the 3rd Century. They compare Archbishop Lefebvre and other Traditionalist figures being excommunicated for rejecting VII comparable to St. Athanasius being excommunicated for rejecting Arianism. Many of them claim that there have been several times in history where we’ve never had a pope but rather anti-popes during those certain periods because they fell into heresy. They believe that most of the modern-day clergy have fallen away because they accept the Vatican II “hereises” of episcopal collegiality, inter-religious dialogue, ecumenism, religious freedom, etc and say that their position is logical because at the time of St. Athanasius, most of the bishops, priests (and even the pope himself who was supposedly an anti-pope) had fallen away because they accepted the heresy of Arianism.

What really happened during the time of Arianism? Is the Traditionalist position valid because it supposedly happened in the past?

Aside from the topic of this thread, which I am not making any statement about, I’d like to ask you to avoid using “traditionalists” as a general term to describe us. “Traditionalists believe this, and traditionalists believe that.” Most of the things you talked about in your posts are things SSPX teaches, and they are by no means all the traditionalists. “Traditionalists” includes quite a few people who are in full communion with Rome, including myself, who do not teach any of the things you mentioned in your post.

I thought I’d just mention that as a clarification.

 

[Catholic4Jesus]

I think that Catholic4Jesus may be referring to the fact that many traditionals within the SSPX circles compare Archbishop Lefebvre to St. Athanasius. They say that St. Athanasius was the only bishop that opposed the Arian bishops and heresy at that time and was exiled from the Church for adhering to the truth; so they say that Archbishop Lefebvre is a modern day Athanasius for opposing modernism.

THANK YOU!!! That’s exactly what I was trying to put out.

 

[Zekariya]

Traditionalists constantly compare their position against Vatican II to the position of St. Athanasius in the 3rd Century.

St Athanasius of Alexandria was exiled many times, however, he never started his own Church or group. He defended the Faith and submitted to whatever punishment they gave him. He was exiled (might have the number wrong) about five times. He never said, “Enough with you. I’ll start my own thing.”

Same with the Prophets. They never said, “The king is evil and everyone is corrupt. I’ll start my own Israel.”

 

[Catholic4Jesus]

Aside from the topic of this thread, which I am not making any statement about, I’d like to ask you to avoid using “traditionalists” as a general term to describe us. “Traditionalists believe this, and traditionalists believe that.” Most of the things you talked about in your posts are things SSPX teaches, and they are by no means all the traditionalists. “Traditionalists” includes quite a few people who are in full communion with Rome, including myself, who do not teach any of the things you mentioned in your post.

I thought I’d just mention that as a clarification.

OK, I apologize if I offend anyone. I am not against Traditionalists in communion with Rome. I was raised in a Traditionalist household and I grew up going to an independent chapel. I have recently made my break with Traditionalism (at the least the breed of Traditionalism I was brought up with) and I’m just going off of points that I wwere exposed to. I mean not to judge, I am just a sincere person with some questions. And I know that the SSPX is not the only position of Traditionalism, I especially know that going to an independent church. I’m sorry, I should’ve been a little more clearer when clarifying “Traditionalists.” I’ll be clearer from now on.

 

[dshix]

OK, I apologize if I offend anyone. I am not against Traditionalists in communion with Rome. I was raised in a Traditionalist household and I grew up going to an independent chapel. I have recently made my break with Traditionalism (at the least the breed of Traditionalism I was brought up with) and I’m just going off of points that I wwere exposed to. I mean not to judge, I am just a sincere person with some questions. And I know that the SSPX is not the only position of Traditionalism, I especially know that going to an independent church. I’m sorry, I should’ve been a little more clearer when clarifying “Traditionalists.” I’ll be clearer from now on.

That’s all right, no offense taken.

 

[manualman]

Are you saying that you can document a pope who formally taught Arianism as doctrine? Can you provide names, dates and citations?

Thanks.

 

[Zekariya]

Are you saying that you can document a pope who formally taught Arianism as doctrine? Can you provide names, dates and citations?

Thanks.

I never heard of any pope condoning any heresy except Pope Honorius I teaching monothelitism. Here is a good article about St Athanasius of Alexandria: newadvent.org/cathen/02035a.htm

 

[catholictiger]

Traditionalists constantly compare their position against Vatican II to the position of St. Athanasius in the 3rd Century. They compare Archbishop Lefebvre and other Traditionalist figures being excommunicated for rejecting VII comparable to St. Athanasius being excommunicated for rejecting Arianism. Many of them claim that there have been several times in history where we’ve never had a pope but rather anti-popes during those certain periods because they fell into heresy. They believe that most of the modern-day clergy have fallen away because they accept the Vatican II “hereises” of episcopal collegiality, inter-religious dialogue, ecumenism, religious freedom, etc and say that their position is logical because at the time of St. Athanasius, most of the bishops, priests (and even the pope himself who was supposedly an anti-pope) had fallen away because they accepted the heresy of Arianism.

What really happened during the time of Arianism? Is the Traditionalist position valid because it supposedly happened in the past?

The Churches understanding of divine revelation in the 3rd century is completely different then its understanding now, so while you could use those documents from that time don’t ignore the documents from today which deal with this issue.

But because of the issue was resolved and the development of the issue hasn’t developed much you are probably safe in assuming what you assume.

 

[Catholic4Jesus]

Are you saying that you can document a pope who formally taught Arianism as doctrine? Can you provide names, dates and citations?

Thanks.

No, I don’t believe any former pope has fallen into heresy or supported Arianism.

 

[manualman]

No, I don’t believe any former pope has fallen into heresy or supported Arianism.

I’m just giving the guy rope, OK? If he can’t cite one, he loses, but the game isn’t over until he either ponies up the response or slinks away.

As far as I can remember Athanasius was protected by Rome against the Arians. How’s that remotely similar to the SSPX cause anyways?

 

[Lormar]

Have you read the thread?

Catholic4Jesus wants to know how to refute the claims of the SSPX that they and their founder are like St. Athanasius during the Arian heresy.

Or am I not understanding your response? Maybe they are meant tongue in cheek?

 

[Lormar]

I’m just giving the guy rope, OK? If he can’t cite one, he loses, but the game isn’t over until he either ponies up the response or slinks away.

As far as I can remember Athanasius was protected by Rome against the Arians. How’s that remotely similar to the SSPX cause anyways?

My apologies, Manualman. I am very sorry. Only now did I reread your posts and understand them.

Please disregard the post above this one. I better get on the ball and eat more Wheaties or something. :clapping:

 

[Megan7]

Traditionalists constantly compare their position against Vatican II to the position of St. Athanasius in the 3rd Century. They compare Archbishop Lefebvre and other Traditionalist figures being excommunicated for rejecting VII comparable to St. Athanasius being excommunicated for rejecting Arianism. Many of them claim that there have been several times in history where we’ve never had a pope but rather anti-popes during those certain periods because they fell into heresy. They believe that most of the modern-day clergy have fallen away because they accept the Vatican II “hereises” of episcopal collegiality, inter-religious dialogue, ecumenism, religious freedom, etc and say that their position is logical because at the time of St. Athanasius, most of the bishops, priests (and even the pope himself who was supposedly an anti-pope) had fallen away because they accepted the heresy of Arianism.

What really happened during the time of Arianism? Is the Traditionalist position valid because it supposedly happened in the past?

Looking forward to more replies, thanks

 

[Catholic4Jesus]

Have you read the thread?

Catholic4Jesus wants to know how to refute the claims of the SSPX that they and their founder are like St. Athanasius during the Arian heresy.

Or am I not understanding your response? Maybe they are meant tongue in cheek?

No you’re sopt on. That’s exactly what I’m asking. You seem to be the only one who gets it.

 

[Lormar]

No you’re sopt on. That’s exactly what I’m asking. You seem to be the only one who gets it.

That’s because I imbibed many, many, many years of their, er…, way of looking at things (that’s a safe way to put it) so I know exactly what you are talking about.

I’d like a good answer to your question myself, as I have none.