EWTN News portal reports on the life of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, presenting him as a “champion of the Nicene Creed” and “father of orthodoxy.” While the article recounts historical facts about the Arian controversy and Athanasius’s defense of Christ’s divinity, it systematically omits the most crucial theological and ecclesial implications of his witness, thereby reducing a titan of Catholic orthodoxy to a mere historical figure whose struggles have no bearing on the present crisis of faith. This sanitized hagiography, typical of the conciliar sect’s approach to the saints, strips Athanasius of his prophetic relevance, failing to apply his uncompromising defense of *extra Ecclesiam nulla salus* and the Church’s infallible Magisterium to the modernist apostasy that has consumed the very institution claiming his legacy.
The Arian Heresy and the Unseen Modernist Parallel
The article correctly identifies the Arian heresy as a denial of Christ’s full divinity, stating that Arius taught Jesus was “the highest of created beings” and could be considered “divine” only by analogy. It notes that Athanasius “defended the Nicene Creed throughout his life” and that the Council of Nicaea “reaffirmed the Church’s perennial teaching on Christ’s full deity.” This is a factual recounting of a pivotal moment in Church history.
However, the article’s profound failure lies in its refusal to draw the most obvious and devastating parallel: the modernist heresy, condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi Dominici gregis, is a direct descendant of Arianism. St. Pius X explicitly condemned the modernist proposition that “the Christ of faith is not the historical Christ” and that “dogmas are not truths fallen from heaven, but a certain interpretation of religious facts” (Propositions 27, 22). The modernist “evolution of dogmas” (Proposition 58) is merely a sophisticated restatement of Arius’s error, attempting to reduce the unchanging truths of faith to mere human constructs subject to historical development. Athanasius’s unwavering defense of the hypostatic union – that Christ is “consubstantial with the Father” – stands as an eternal rebuke to every attempt, ancient or modern, to diminish the divine nature of Our Lord. The article’s silence on this point is not accidental; it is a deliberate act of omission designed to prevent the faithful from seeing that the very heresies Athanasius combated are now openly taught and practiced within the conciliar structures.
The Papacy: A Vacant See and Usurped Authority
The article mentions that Athanasius “received the support of several popes” and that Emperor Constantius “coerced one pope, Liberius, into condemning Athanasius by having him kidnapped, threatened with death, and sent away from Rome for two years.” It then states, “The pope eventually managed to return to Rome, where he again proclaimed Athanasius’ orthodoxy.” This narrative, while historically accurate in its broad strokes, completely ignores the profound theological implications of a pope falling into heresy or being coerced into an heretical act.
As the Defense of Sedevacantism file explains, St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church, states: “The fifth true opinion is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, by that very fact ceases to be Pope and head, just as he ceases to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church.” Wernz and Vidal confirm this, stating that a pope “is deprived ipso facto of his personal jurisdiction even before any declaratory sentence by the Church” for “notorious and publicly manifested heresy.” The example of Nestorius, whose heresy was condemned by Pope Celestine I, further illustrates that a bishop who openly preaches heresy loses his jurisdiction from the moment he begins to preach it. The article’s failure to apply these immutable principles to the current crisis – where the occupants of the Vatican have embraced modernism, a “synthesis of all heresies” – is a glaring omission. It implicitly validates the authority of the very “popes” who have systematically dismantled the faith Athanasius died to protect, thereby committing a profound act of historical and theological fraud.
The Church’s Mission: Spiritual Warfare or Mere Historical Curiosity?
The article concludes with a quote from St. Gregory Nazianzen, describing Athanasius as “the true pillar of the Church” whose “life and conduct were the rule of bishops and his doctrine the rule of the orthodox faith.” This is a powerful testament to Athanasius’s enduring legacy. Yet, the article presents this legacy as a mere historical curiosity, a relic of the past with no bearing on the present.
Pius XI, in his encyclical Quas Primas, unequivocally states that Christ’s reign “extends not only to Catholic nations… but His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.” He further declares that “the state must leave the same freedom to the members of Orders and Congregations… who are indeed the most valiant helpers of the Pastors of the Church and contribute most to the expansion and establishment of Christ’s Kingdom.” Athanasius’s life was a living embodiment of this principle, defending the Church’s divine right to teach and govern without interference from secular powers or heretical factions. The article’s failure to connect Athanasius’s struggle to the current subversion of the Church by modernist “bishops” and “popes” who have surrendered to the spirit of the age is a betrayal of his witness. It reduces the “father of orthodoxy” to a safe, sanitized figure, stripped of his prophetic power to condemn the very errors now rampant in the conciliar sect.
The EWTN Narrative: A Tool of the Conciliar Apostasy
The EWTN article, by its very nature and omissions, serves the narrative of the conciliar sect. It presents a Catholicism that is historically aware but doctrinally neutered. It celebrates saints without applying their teachings to the present crisis. It acknowledges past heresies without identifying their modern manifestations. This is the hallmark of the “hermeneutics of continuity,” a modernist invention designed to mask the radical rupture with tradition that occurred after 1958.
The Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX condemns the proposition that “the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Proposition 80). EWTN, by failing to apply the uncompromising stance of St. Athanasius to the modernist apostasy, implicitly endorses this very reconciliation. It presents a Church that has “come to terms” with the world, rather than one that stands as a beacon of unchanging truth against the darkness of error. The article’s silence on the true nature of the present crisis – the occupation of the Vatican by modernists who have abandoned the faith of Nicaea – is not merely an oversight; it is a deliberate act of complicity in the ongoing destruction of the Catholic Church.
In conclusion, the EWTN article on St. Athanasius is a prime example of how the conciliar sect uses the saints as decorative figures, stripping them of their doctrinal teeth. It presents a “safe” Athanasius, one who fought long ago and far away, rather than the Athanasius who stands as a perpetual judge of all who would compromise the faith. Until the faithful recognize the true nature of the present crisis – a crisis of authority and doctrine that demands a return to the unchanging principles defended by Athanasius – such articles will continue to serve as instruments of spiritual deception, leading souls away from the true Church and into the wilderness of modernist apostasy.
Source:
The life and legacy of St. Athanasius, champion of the Nicene Creed (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 02.05.2026