Author Topic: LETTER OF SAINT ATHANASIUS TO HIS FLOCK (Read 6998 times)

McCork · « **on:** January 16, 2016, 03:32:56 PM »

I am posting this because St. Athanasius had lived in the early days of the Church. His quote here has reputable, old support for veracity, but I am seeing some people starting to question it, only because they don't like what principles it hands down to us.

______________________________________________________________________
LETTER OF SAINT ATHANASIUS TO HIS FLOCK:

Saint Athanasius lived in the fourth century and was the Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt for 46 years. Banned from his diocese at least five times, he spent a total of 17 years in exile. The famous convert to the Church, John Henry Cardinal Newman, described him as a “principal instrument after the Apostles by which the sacred truths of Christianity have been conveyed and secured to the world.” Often referred to as the Champion of Orthodoxy, Saint Athanasius was undoubtedly one of the most courageous defenders of the Faith in the entire history of the Church. If anyone can be singled out as a saint for our times, surely it is Saint Athanasius. The following letter of his could, almost word for word, have been written yesterday.

Quote

May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the Churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises---but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our Churches, but they are outside the True Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The True Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle---the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?

True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way…

You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.

No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our Churches back some day.

Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, they more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from tit and going astray.

Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the True Church of Jesus Christ.

(Coll. selecta SS. Eccl. Patrum, Caillau and Guillou, Vol. 32, pp. 411-412)

2Vermont · « **Reply #1 on:** January 16, 2016, 03:35:46 PM »

Thank you for posting this. I needed to hear it again.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #2 on:** January 16, 2016, 03:40:28 PM »

I had a copy of that letter long before Internet was popular and it is exactly as you posted.

So many people today, just can't accept the Truth of the Papacy because it is not convenient.

McCork · « **Reply #3 on:** January 17, 2016, 08:50:12 AM »

There are some great lessons to learn from this which reveal the parallels to the Novus Ordo.

1. The flock were expected to make that personal moral judgment on the condition of the Arian churches even BEFORE Rome officially condemned the Arians.

2. The Arians had just ONE error, and it was philosophical and subtle. The Novus Ordo has multiple and blatant doctrinal errors.

3. NOT A CONSIDERATION was the thought the Arians still had valid Sacraments.

4. NOT A CONSIDERATION was the thought that some Arian priest might not preach at Mass on that one error.

5. NOT A CONSIDERATION was that the Arians were "not meant to be infallible" so their error was to be expected.

6. NOT A CONSIDERATION was to stay connected with the heretical danger to be able to "fight from within" endangering one's own soul.

7. ALL to be considered was that there was a danger to the soul which must be abhored and shunned such that all association severed.

I am seeing people coming on Catholic forums now and casting doubt on all of this! Nobody should consider himself a lover of "tradition" if he flouts this.

Meg · « **Reply #4 on:** January 17, 2016, 09:57:18 AM »

And yet, despite everything that St. Athanasius had been through with the Arians, he never said that the seat of Peter was vacant.

Desmond · « **Reply #5 on:** January 17, 2016, 10:01:54 AM »

Quote from: Meg

And yet, despite everything that St. Athanasius had been through with the Arians, he never said that the seat of Peter was vacant.

Because the Pope, especially not 6 in a row, was not openly adhering to Arianism.

Meg · « **Reply #6 on:** January 17, 2016, 10:05:59 AM »

Quote from: Desmond

Quote from: Meg
And yet, despite everything that St. Athanasius had been through with the Arians, he never said that the seat of Peter was vacant.

Because the Pope, especially not 6 in a row, was not openly adhering to Arianism.

Which popes condemned Arianism?

Meg · « **Reply #7 on:** January 17, 2016, 10:18:30 AM »

Quote from: Desmond

Quote from: Meg
And yet, despite everything that St. Athanasius had been through with the Arians, he never said that the seat of Peter was vacant.

Because the Pope, especially not 6 in a row, was not openly adhering to Arianism.

And what about Pope Liberius? He initially defended St. Athansius, but after Pope Liberius was kidnapped by Arians and held in exile for two years, and having been threatened with death if he did not condemn St. Athansius, he finally relented and signed a condemnation of St. Athanasius.

Even then, St. Athanasius did not say that the Seat of Peter was vacant. And the Arians were far more ruthless and violent than the modernists of today.

sword of the Spirit · « **Reply #8 on:** January 17, 2016, 10:42:51 AM »

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: Desmond
Quote from: Meg
And yet, despite everything that St. Athanasius had been through with the Arians, he never said that the seat of Peter was vacant.

Because the Pope, especially not 6 in a row, was not openly adhering to Arianism.

And what about Pope Liberius? He initially defended St. Athansius, but after Pope Liberius was kidnapped by Arians and held in exile for two years, and having been threatened with death if he did not condemn St. Athansius, he finally relented and signed a condemnation of St. Athanasius.

Even then, St. Athanasius did not say that the Seat of Peter was vacant. And the Arians were far more ruthless and violent than the modernists of today.

It is ridiculous and inconceivable to believe that after Pope Benedict XV notes, Pope Liberius went into exile in defense of the faith and did so FEARLESSLY, would then condemn the man he HEROICALLY defended and the reason he was exiled in the first place.

I agree with St Hillary, it was a forged docuмent wrongly accusing Pope Liberius.

Desmond · « **Reply #9 on:** January 17, 2016, 10:55:56 AM »

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: Desmond
Quote from: Meg
And yet, despite everything that St. Athanasius had been through with the Arians, he never said that the seat of Peter was vacant.

Because the Pope, especially not 6 in a row, was not openly adhering to Arianism.

Which popes condemned Arianism?

Meg please try to be objective and follow logical discourse.

The fact it was or wasn't condemned has no importance.

We cannot infer from what we know about St.Athanasius if he would have or wouldn't condemn even the Pontiff, were he to embrace Arianism, because it did not happen.

So, saying "he did not say the seat of Peter was vacant", has no consequence at all on the premise.

MMagdala · « **Reply #10 on:** January 17, 2016, 11:16:51 AM »

The idea that the orthodox, heroic, and faithful St. Athanasius meant by that letter that non-ordained, non-elected, non-appointed

Quote

Catholics faithful to tradition .... are the ones who are the True Church of Jesus Christ

in the sense of philosophical essence and in the sense of canonical/ecclesiastical replacement of the hierarchy is preposterous. What a Protestant idea.

The Roman Catholic Church is absolutely structured in her official capacity. While she derives her authority from Christ and His absolute Truth (she does not "create" Truth), her identity is also not free-floating and up for grabs by claimants, occupiers, and squatters. There is one central Church, whether or not all of her leadership and all of her members are faithfully representing eternal Truth and living that Truth and teaching that Truth. It's the same Church that depends on Apostolic Succession for its legitimacy.

Meg · « **Reply #11 on:** January 17, 2016, 11:31:49 AM »

Quote from: Desmond

Meg please try to be objective and follow logical discourse.

The fact it was or wasn't condemned has no importance.

No importance to you, but I'll say what I like in defense of the Papacy, and against SVism.

Desmond · « **Reply #12 on:** January 17, 2016, 11:35:10 AM »

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: Desmond

Meg please try to be objective and follow logical discourse.

The fact it was or wasn't condemned has no importance.

No importance to you, but I'll say what I like in defense of the Papacy, and against SVism.

No, it is objectively non important.

The best that can be said regarding St. Athanasius and the Popes reigning during his time is he didn't condemn them, and he had no reason to even do so as they were not even Arian.

You can set up a strawman, by saying they failed to condemn Arianism (allegedly), so it's the same as V:II antipopes, but it would be just that.
As they did not fail to condemn something but were actually the promoters themselves of novelties/heresies.

You can technically say whatever you please, lie even, if you feel like it, still doesn't change anything.

Meg · « **Reply #13 on:** January 17, 2016, 11:38:46 AM »

Quote from: Desmond

You can technically say whatever you please, lie even, if you feel like it, still doesn't change anything.

Accusing me of lying (I expect this of some SV's) is not going to change my mind. St. Athanasius never claimed that the Seat of Peter was vacant, even though few (if any) Popes condemned Arianism. He was loyal to the Papacy, even after having been condemned by Pope Liberius.

Meg · « **Reply #14 on:** January 17, 2016, 11:43:22 AM »

Quote from: MMagdala

The idea that the orthodox, heroic, and faithful St. Athanasius meant by that letter that non-ordained, non-elected, non-appointed
Quote
Catholics faithful to tradition .... are the ones who are the True Church of Jesus Christ

in the sense of philosophical essence and in the sense of canonical/ecclesiastical replacement of the hierarchy is preposterous. What a Protestant idea.

The Roman Catholic Church is absolutely structured in her official capacity. While she derives her authority from Christ and His absolute Truth (she does not "create" Truth), her identity is also not free-floating and up for grabs by claimants, occupiers, and squatters. There is one central Church, whether or not all of her leadership and all of her members are faithfully representing eternal Truth and living that Truth and teaching that Truth. It's the same Church that depends on Apostolic Succession for its legitimacy.

Well said.