Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Prevalence of Catholicism in the Arian Crisis
« Last post by ubipetrus on February 13, 2018, 07:03:37 PM »
Actually Athanasius was one of the only faithful bishops (along with Hilary, Eusebius of Samasota, and a handful of others): It was the majority of the faithful who were with him. 
But the overwhelming majority of the hierarchy had apostatized.
Hence "Athanasius contra mundum."
This is the conventional account I had encountered at every turn and in every place, with such constancy as to constitute sound and accurate historical information.  But in preparing my draft for Sede Vacante! Part One I adopted Fr. Sylvester Berry's work as my second most common source (next to Msgr. G. Van Noort), who explores some aspects not explored by Van Noort, and also offers some different perspectives (and terminology) that I saw as necessary to round out its findings.  It was in that reading that I first came across the exact quote that heads off this thread.  It was far and away the most truly unexpected statement I came across in all of the reading of these and several other works which I quote in that book.

At the time, it seemed to make sense to me that perhaps it was a bit of pious conjecture, since the actual prime source historical data must be rather fragmentary and inconsistent to allow for such disparate historical interpretations, and even accounts, of that whole event.  It was enough for me to back off from any references to the historical events of the Arian Crisis, as reports so varied, within any further works.  And as brought out in this thread, apparently Fr. Berry is not alone, either.  But I still have to wonder.  St. Bellarmine in writing of the same events differs in the one respect that he claims that the Council of Rimini had 600 bishops, as distinct from 450 bishops at the subsequent Council of Constantinople, as proof that the number of bishops is not what gives weight to one Council versus another.  The point remains valid even if the history be mistaken.  What makes a Council authoritative is that the Pope approves it.

But I still had (have?) reason to question this assertion.  At least in the case of Fr. Berry, he makes this claim in the context of claiming that the general run of the bishops cannot all (or even "nearly all") fall into the same error.  Obviously, if the Arian Crisis had been as the conventional wisdom about it reports, then obviously a majority of bishops CAN fall into error (but at least the Pope would still be true, and DOES have more doctrinal weight than even all the rest of the bishops taken together) which directly runs counter to the very point he was trying to make, so of course such an extraordinarily favorable interpretation of historical events (what little is actually known of them) is necessary.

For my book, rather than try to get into the history (which I realized would only open a vast can of worms as to what actually "might" have happened), I balanced that with Van Noort who also discusses this idea with the claim that it is a "majority opinion" among the theologians, with an acknowledged "minority opinion," but even so I have stuck with a policy of not attempting to resolve any questions legitimately open among theologians before Vatican II.  Certainly, it would be easy to put the whole Vatican II morass down to the minority opinion (that such a massive defection is possible to much of the general run of Catholic bishops), as against the majority opinion (which Fr. Berry taught absolutely), and while that might have been a legitimate tack to take, I could not, other than to venture it as a possibility.  Especially not if the Arian Crisis may not be quite the conclusive evidence in favor of the minority opinion as I (and most of us) had previously supposed.

The more difficult course, the alternative (which I took as being something which must be addressed somehow) of going with Fr. Berry and the majority opinion as spoken of by Van Noort results in one of twenty-two dangling questions left at the end of Part One, which can only be dealt with using a theory, as discussed in Part Two.  As worded, that question was "If the teaching (as presented by Berry) and the majority theological opinion (as so described by Van Noort) were correct, then by what means or at what point did the vast majority of bishops first depart from the Church, such that their subsequent fall into error had no relevance to such scenario as such a significant proportion of Catholic bishops falling into error?"

If Fr. Berry is right, if Msgr. G. Van Noort's "majority opinion" is right, then the failure of nearly every formerly Catholic bishop at (and/or since) Vatican II requires an explanation, doctrinally speaking.  They cannot, per the doctrine, and as the general run of the bishops of the Church, have virtually all defected, yet we note that the Novus Ordo "bishops" really have defected.  This gets discussed in Section 15 of Sede Vacante! Part One, by which point it is already clear from the preceding doctrines already covered that the only way this could happen is that they departed from the Church first and then defected into their Novus Ordo errors.

The additional quotes from this thread do furnish us with some additional thoughts, however, and some parallels to today.  Going with the numbers given in the St. Alphonsus Liguori quote of 80 Arians and ~320 others who are not Arians (though I kind of have to wonder since Bellarmine has 600 bishops total) that might be like some (the 80 Arians or the "Fathers of the Rhine" as described by Fr. Wiltgen in The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber) at Vatican II who culpably wanted to change the Church, and then so very many others (like the 320) who signed on owing to having been deceived as to the actual content and meaning and implications of the documents they were signing, but who intended no departure from the previous Faith at the time.

As a result, I do not see their participation at Vatican II (or Rimini for the same reasons) to be a basis to conclude they had defected.  But after the council was over and the Modernists (and Arians) began to gloat over their success and to take things in a non-Catholic direction, there were some (maybe even many) who felt that having signed what they signed (though they had been tricked) they saw it as a fait accompli, permitted in God's Providence, and therefore that they had to stand by what they signed, tolerating the heresies or even gradually coming to accept them.  While many at the council (either one) meant no break with Catholic doctrine, many of those may have felt committed to the errors and heresies to which they had unwittingly signed up.  Certainly with Vatican II that was the case.  Perhaps that also happened with Rimini as well, making Arianism a much larger problem in the years following the council than it had ever been before or during it, and in that time perhaps St. Athanasius then found himself so very nearly alone and isolated.
22
No, but sin did.
23
Well, I am taking a Lenten break.  But it appears that the reason you're hanging around is to assert that the CATHOLIC CHURCH has defected. This is heresy.  You should be banned if you don't recant.  I still wonder whether you aren't really Eastern Orthodox after all.

Ahh, it only took #118 posts to finally be called a schismatic. All without ever having leveled one attack against the Sedevacantists or Traditionalists or anyone else.

I need to recant for saying the Pope can't defect or be a heretic? I should be banned for saying there was a defection at Vatican II?

Also there goes you and I having a few amicable posts together. I knew it was too good to be true.

May God love you and bless you this lenten and Easter season.

No.  You were not called a schismatic, she only wonders if you are schismatic.  She called you a heretic, since you have been spouting heresy on this topic and trying to get the Catholics on this forum to agree with your heresy. 
24
Oh stop with the predictable role of victim.  You have clearly stated on more than one occasion that THE CHURCH defected.    You have been told repeatedly that no one here is saying that.  ANYONE who pushes heresy on this site should be banned unless they recant.  You do not recant. 
25
It's quite fitting that I have a splitting (migraine?) headache today.  :facepalm:

I think I'll leave it to Ubipetrus to set you straight VZ. Again, I'm just not sure whether you want to be set straight.  I think you have decided that the Church defected at Vatican II; therefore, regardless of what Ubi writes, you take it to mean what you have decided it to mean.

Because it means that there actually was a defection. How ridiculous to say 99% of the entire hierarchy and laity left the church, but this is just a simple leaving of the church. The defection is devastating for, well everyone. I can see why you're reticent to see what has been presented. I can see why a catastrophic defection like this would cause you a headache.

You hang around for some reason. You could've bowed out pages ago. Don't worry, I am more than willing to talk it out.

Well, I am taking a Lenten break.  But it appears that the reason you're hanging around is to assert that the CATHOLIC CHURCH has defected.  This is heresy.  You should be banned if you don't recant.  I still wonder whether you aren't really Eastern Orthodox after all.

Ahh, it only took #118 posts to finally be called a schismatic. All without ever having leveled one attack against the Sedevacantists or Traditionalists or anyone else.

I need to recant for saying the Pope can't defect or be a heretic? I should be banned for saying there was a defection at Vatican II?

Also there goes you and I having a few amicable posts together. I knew it was too good to be true.

May God love you and bless you this lenten and Easter season.
26
It's quite fitting that I have a splitting (migraine?) headache today.  :facepalm:

I think I'll leave it to Ubipetrus to set you straight VZ. Again, I'm just not sure whether you want to be set straight.  I think you have decided that the Church defected at Vatican II; therefore, regardless of what Ubi writes, you take it to mean what you have decided it to mean.

Because it means that there actually was a defection. How ridiculous to say 99% of the entire hierarchy and laity left the church, but this is just a simple leaving of the church. The defection is devastating for, well everyone. I can see why you're reticent to see what has been presented. I can see why a catastrophic defection like this would cause you a headache.

You hang around for some reason. You could've bowed out pages ago. Don't worry, I am more than willing to talk it out.

Well, I am taking a Lenten break.  But it appears that the reason you're hanging around is to assert that the CATHOLIC CHURCH has defected.  This is heresy.  You should be banned if you don't recant.  I still wonder whether you aren't really Eastern Orthodox after all.
27
It's quite fitting that I have a splitting (migraine?) headache today.  :facepalm:

I think I'll leave it to Ubipetrus to set you straight VZ. Again, I'm just not sure whether you want to be set straight.  I think you have decided that the Church defected at Vatican II; therefore, regardless of what Ubi writes, you take it to mean what you have decided it to mean.

Because it means that there actually was a defection. How ridiculous to say 99% of the entire hierarchy and laity left the church, but this is just a simple leaving of the church. The defection is devastating for, well everyone. I can see why you're reticent to accept what has been presented. I can see why a catastrophic defection like this would cause you a headache.

You hang around for some reason. You could've bowed out pages ago. Don't worry, I am more than willing to talk it out.
28
Oh no, here we go again.  The Church never defected.  A significant number (99% or so) of churchmen, cleric religious and lay, left the Church, and having left then defected in their conversion to an alien religion.
It is just possible (theoretically, or at least hypothetically) that a person separated from the Church could maintain the Faith whole and entire (though separated from the Church it is of no benefit unless the separation be a result of events outside the control of the person, e. g. being stranded on a desert island).  But defection, at least to some degree (East Orthodox), and often typically to a considerable degree (Protestants), always seems to be the result.

There would be no point in starting another thread and having another discussion. I think we know it is probably not possible. For one reason. I say that 99% of churchmen, cleric, religious and lay, left the church in a defection at Vatican II.  You say they left. Then after they left they defected. You don't have a term for their leaving other than they just left.

What would dancing on the head of the needle accomplish at this point.

For comparison, when all English bishops but one and nearly all priests signed the Declaration or Royal Supremacy, and when nearly all of the general run of the laity went along with them (and religious orders were dissolved), a newly minted Church OF England formally entered a state of schism.  But the Church IN England, now reduced to a relatively tiny remnant, did not defect at all.  Though King Henry VIII attempted to prevent the defection of the Church OF England (other than his own ability to procure annulments as easy as Novus Ordo annulments today) by preserving as much else as possible, he could not stop the looting of the religious houses, and once he was no longer in power those who followed him (other than good queen Mary) led the Church OF England into a full scale defection.  They (who left) defected, not we (romanists then, traditionalists now, who remained), as we did not defect, and the Church we comprised did not defect at all.

We already dealt with the church of England issue and how it was different than what happened at Vatican II in replies #49 and #69.
29
I thought true catholic was banned.
30
Announcements / Lenten Break
« Last post by 2Vermont on February 13, 2018, 04:26:09 PM »
Just wanted to let the forum know that I have decided to take a Lenten break from posting in the forum (although I may post on Sundays since those are little Easters).
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10