It is currently Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:10 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 144 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
 Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160) 
Author Message

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:49 pm
Posts: 11
New post Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
As most of us here may know, Canon 183 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states that "Ecclesiastical office is lost by resignation, privation, removal, transfer, or lapse of a predetermined time."
Regarding "lapse of a predetermined time," Canon 175 states that when a person is elected to an office, he has eight "useful" days to express his acceptance of the office, or else the election is null. However, though that seems to apply to just about "any" ecclesiastical office (and therefore can be taken as a kind of "canonical norm" to fall back upon in the case that no other or different acceptance period is specified), it is important to point out that Canon 160 states that the election of a Supreme Pontiff is to be guided solely by a constitution.
The constitution of 1904, namely Vacante Sede Apostolica, by His Holiness Pope St. Pius X, is mentioned here in the Code as originally published; other documents of similar and equivalent import have doubtless preceded and followed it. If this document (or whichever is in effect at a given time) states some other "predetermined time," or else specifically states that there is no such time limit for he that is elected to accept or refuse the election to the papacy, then of course the "eight useful days" criteria would not apply here. If however it doesn't specify such a time period, then the "8 useful days" would apply, especially if said document included any standard boilerplate clauses along such lines as "except as specified within this document, regular canonical norms apply," or even if that could legitimately be inferred.
So unless some different period of time for this "predetermined time" should be specified in the document for guiding the election of a succeeding pope, this would raise one interesting question in the case of a materially elected pope who never formally accepts his office. If, for example, John XXIII or Paul VI never formally accepted their elections to the papacy (something I consider highly probable), would they not have lost whatever status such an election confers upon them after eight days, or whatever arbitrary period may have been specified in the constitution regarding the election of the Supreme Pontiff? Much as I regard the Formaliter/Materialiter position of being of some real possible merit, this does raise yet another hurdle that must be addressed by those who support it. For example, unless any "cardinals" were appointed within that eight-day (or whatever) period, even appointments to the cardinalate would be of no effect and unable to provide any basis for further material popes.


Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:11 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
Griff, not sure what the relevant Constitution lays down, but this is a truth of the natural law anyway, I think. That is, the acceptance of an office by an electee is an essential requirement. This must be signified in some clear manner. We've all read about cases in history where holy men who were elected pope did not immediately accept and had to be persuaded. Reason tells us that there is a time limit on this. If a pope-elect did not accept for a week, and he died, everybody would agree he was never pope. Likewise for a month.

The whole nature of the case, which is that the act of acceptance is a human act in human circumstances, demands a reasonable time within which acceptance or refusal is required. The Code's regulation regarding all other offices reflects this requirement of reason.

I agree that this is a major problem for the Guerardian view. It's also typical of the obscure and ethereal approach of Guerard des Lauriers. Indeed, he was famous for this kind of impracticality.

And there is a further problem - Paul VI posited numerous acts which signified that he rejected the office, including for example selling his papal tiara, after laying it on the altar of St. Peter's, a strikingly symbolic act. John Paul I refused to be crowned at all, likewise John Paul II. The latter commented on the tiara that he refused to accept, "Perhaps it signified the fact that the triple mission of Christ as priest, prophet and king continues in the Church. But everyone in the People of God shares in this threefold mission." That's a pretty clear heresy, but more importantly in this context, it's a dismissal of the office as being really distinct from the status of every other Christian.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:36 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:49 pm
Posts: 11
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
I am just hoping that some Guerardian might be reading this and be willing to weigh in.
Give or take how familiar you may be with my writings, I think you should know that I do not find the Guerardian thesis adequate to account for the present situation. It also provides no valid basis for their (des Laurier's and Sanborn's) early and adamant refusal of "una cum <whoever>" Masses, apart from the idea you ventured on another thread that perhaps des Lauriers proponded that merely to "balance" the seeming semi-recognition of the Vatican organization.
However, if only this particular hurdle could be overcome, I do see the Guerardian thesis as being quite possible regarding the case of John XXIII.


Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:14 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
Griff Ruby wrote:
However, if only this particular hurdle could be overcome, I do see the Guerardian thesis as being quite possible regarding the case of John XXIII.


I'd like to see how it gets off first base, Griff.

That is, where is it in the literature? When Bishop Sanborn wrote his article on it, he found countless quotes referring to "material succession" and every one of them proved the opposite of his thesis. That is, in every single case the term referred to men who had not been designated by lawful means to an ecclesiastical office, and had never held that office. In every case these were schismatics or heretics who claimed some ancient see completely without legitimacy. Yet the Guerardian position is precisely that "material succession" is constituted by real, lawful, designation to the office of the papacy which has yet to be accepted.

I've yet to come across a layman Guerardian who understands it (I expect because they haven't studied philosophy), and the priests who hold it won't debate it, so I doubt you'll ever see what you're hoping for.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:26 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
Anybody interested in the Guerardian position should read the posts below from Jim Larrabee to the old Sede List, fourteen years ago. None of this tight, cogent, and I think irrefutable argument was ever answered by the Guerardians.

Here, re-formatted for convenience, are the various points and objections made by Jim Larrabee against the Cassiciacum Thesis in general, and then in turn against a layman who sought to defend it, against the arguments of Bishop (then Fr.) Sanborn, and finally against the arguments of Abbe Lucien.

> 2. When the Bishop says the V2 false popes were/are "materially the pope," is he saying that they fill the seat of St. Peter by election so they are there, obviously; but formally, by their heresies they are not formally true Popes?

J. Larrabee: Yes. What's unique, or what I would say novel and wrong, about the thesis is that it postulates that being "materially" the Pope confers some power of administration over the Church, such as appointing bishops and cardinals. This seems to be an extension of Cajetan's theory, disproved by Bellarmine, that a Pope who falls into schism or heresy must be formally removed from office by a juridical procedure; until that time he continues to hold office.

> 3. How does this theory square with the Papal Bulla of 1559, Cum ex Apostolatus? (It states that if various prelates - including the Pontiff - had before their election deviated from the Catholic faith into some heresy, their elevation is invalid and null.)

J. Larrabee: I'm not sure this theory deals with the case of a man who was already a heretic before election - just another of its deficiencies. Possibly they consider this bull a matter of ecclesiastical law and no longer effective (if ever), etc. Unfortunately, the canonical side of the question doesn't seem to have been treated by Des Lauriers in any depth and his followers seem to have followed him in this. In the same way, they seem to disregard canon 188:4, which is derived from the bull you mention, which in turn of course only stated what has always been the tradition of the Church, as Bellarmine proves.

> With John 23 through John Paul 2 credited with various heresies, WHY even appear to give them credit as being "materially the pope"?

J. Larrabee: This puzzled me as well. The answer I got from one well-known propounder of the thesis was that they see it as the only possible way of providing for the continuity of the Church as an institution, in the present crisis. I proposed (in a face-to-face discussion) alternative possibilities, but this did not seem to change the position, even though no refutations were offered to my arguments. In addition, there was a flat denial of Bellarmine's historical proof that the jurisdiction of Nestorius was not recognized by the Pope after he began preaching heresy, as proved by Bellarmine (no canonical deposition was involved). In all, Bellarmine seems to be entirely ignored by the Cassiciacum party. To my knowledge, they haven't even dealt seriously with his arguments.

> This could confuse some in our chapels who don't read on these matters. (See, it's confused me!) It seems to be a deception of sorts, a courting of the moderates (SSPX, The Remnant, the Wanderer types), trying to give the false pope some status of being a pontiff. Why not just call a spade a spade and say he is a false pope.

J. Larrabee: I agree, but I don't think these men can be described as compromisers - far from it. They have been as intransigent as anyone in the traditional "movement," perhaps more so. It seems to me it is entirely an intellectual problem, stemming from the inexplicable (to me) respect for Cajetan, and the resulting ignorance of sounder theological currents, among even the best Dominicans. It is a weakness of the ecclesiology of the 20th century resulting from failing to follow in the footsteps of the outstanding Roman theologians of the 19th century, particularly Franzelin. Even Garrigou-Lagrange had some markedly liberal opinions. Why? Who knows? Original sin? God's judgment on an apostate mankind? Failure in sanctity? (But who was holier than Guerard?) The political weakness of the Church's rulers since the French Revolution? Anyway, it's a fact. There were seriously decadent tendencies in the theology of the 14th century as well, an age, like ours, destitute of great Doctors. When I mentioned Franzelin to the above-mentioned individual, he responded with considerable sarcasm. Being a Jesuit seemed to be a serious objection to him. Odd, in view of the fact that two of the half-dozen or so Doctors since the Reformation are Jesuits.

J. Larrabee: There hasn't been a single Dominican since the 13th century, unless I am mistaken. And it goes without saying that Cajetan was questionable precisely because he departed from the opinions of the great Dominican Doctors on various points. (He even thought that unbaptized children could be saved by the faith of their parents, as though we were still in Old Testament times. A Judaizing opinion?) Anyway, I ramble.

> Some use "anti-pope." Which is correct?

J. Larrabee: Well, since the definition of antipope is a false claimant to the papacy, that would seem to make these men antipopes.

> 4. "We can't decide these issues as laymen," the moderates say. "The Church at a future date will decide it in a council. A future pope will decide it..." Ok, legally it is so. However, with Cum ex Apostolatus, it appears priests and we lay folks CAN make the judgement.

J. Larrabee: Absolutely. Where have the "moderates" ever proved THEIR position? It's just going with the flow, not a Christian virtue. One's faith has to be very flexible to go with the Wojtylian flow. Anyway, the law has ALREADY judged. It states clearly that no declaration is required for the office to be vacant. "Moderates", conservatives, and conciliarists ignore this legal fact. So who is respecting the law of the Church? It seems to me that WE are.

> So is it the "legalists" who promote the second paragraph above? But "we in the pew" rely on such documents as Cum ex Apostolatus to guide us? It seems divisive.

J. Larrabee: Christ said scandals must come. Without a Pope, this is inevitable. But a Pope must and will be given to the Church, and, as I believe along with our distinguished moderator, in the not very distant future. Otherwise the end is upon us.

____________________________________________________________________

> Your problem, John Lane, seems to be confusing his dignity and authority with his possession of the Apostolic See. It is as the difference between possession and ownership. It is like the difference between "jus in re" and "jus ad rem". A Pope going into heresy in a sense loses ownership but retains possession of the Apostolic See.

J. Larrabee: This is only possible if the thing is distinct from the right to it, as with a house or a car or a diamond ring. In the case of an office, like the papacy, its essence consists in possession of a right, namely the right to rule. It is not a physical object. To possess it is to possess a right. There is nothing else to possess. The right exists when canonical designation has been made and accepted by one capable of holding the office. When the right has been lost, the office is lost.

J. Larrabee: In either case, there is no change in any physical or tangible state of things, but only in a moral one--the fact that the acts of a given man are binding in conscience and in the public forum on others. I.e., it is wrong, and punishable, if they disobey them. (The reality is purely of the mental order, an ens rationis - a "being of reason".) An office, therefore, bestows no physical or spiritual powers on anyone, apart from this purely moral relation to his subjects. In this, it is wholly unlike the sacramental powers of orders. As St. Thomas says, jurisdiction "does not inhere immovably," unlike the latter. It can be and is lost by heresy, as St. Thomas states, as well as by other causes.

> The See itself is NOT the dignity and authority which he has already lost. One can lose ownership of a thing and still retain possession. St. Francis clearly says that he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must deprive him, NOT deprive him of his dignity which he already lost, but deprive him of the Apostolic See. The "deprive" has nothing to do with what he already lost ipso facto. It is to the "Apostolic See" which is referred to in regard to the depriving.

J. Larrabee: The word "dignity" in this context is simply another name for a public office, a perfectly common usage. Thus "dignity" and "papacy" here are equivalent. There is no implication in the text that there is any distinction.

> When St. Francis says, "the Church must deprive him, or as some say, declare him deprived of the Apostolic See", it is effectively the same thing.

J. Larrabee: I do not see any basis for this in the text. I have already proved this. It seems to me, as I have said, that St. Francis is merely mentioning two different theological approaches to this question (essentially, Cajetan's and Bellarmine's), without going into them. If there is any contradiction or inconsistency implicit, that is because Cajetan's position is contradictory (in maintaining that the pope loses his papacy ipso facto by public heresy, yet still must be deprived by a judgment). St. Francis is just quoting.

> St. Francis is much too exacting and meticulous in his book to present a distinction WITHOUT explanation;

J. Larrabee: He had no need of explaining a matter which he mentions merely in passing, to forestall a possible objection which might be raised by Protestant polemicists to the Roman primacy, namely that Catholic theologians admit the possibility of a heretical pope. He was writing a pamphlet, not a treatise. It seems natural that his concern for accuracy led him to mention two well-known positions of the leading theologians.

J. Larrabee: Once again, I emphasize, it is the treatises which must be consulted to find the Church's teaching on difficult and obscure points, not pamphlets, however holy and learned their authors (not that I see anything whatsoever to object to in St. Francis's remarks under discussion, or his work as a whole).

> when he says "or as some say" he is merely saying, "or as some describe it".

J. Larrabee: He means what the words mean. "Some said it," namely Bellarmine and others. So your development of this in support of your thesis has no basis in his text. At any rate, to write "as some say" in place of "as some describe it" would seem indicative of something other than exactitude and meticulousness. Besides, as John Lane has said, the original ought to be referred to if such close scrutiny of the text is to be given any weight.

> When the Church gives an annulment, it is quite frequently referred to as "the Church annulled the marriage" because the declaration officially establishes that it was null from the beginning. It is effectively the same thing in this circumstance, and it can be said, "the Church must annul, or as some say, declare it null".

J. Larrabee: I've never seen anyone write this way, and it is hard to imagine why anyone would wish to do so, precisely because the words imply a difference of opinion, not simply of expression. In fact, everyone (to speak generally) says both "annul" and "declare it null" at different times; or perhaps if accuracy is essential, he would confine himself to "declare null," as I think would be typical of canonical writers. So to use "as some say" in regard to what is a perfectly common expression, equivalent to another, seems straining an imagined analogy to bear a weight it is not capable of supporting.

J. Larrabee: Philosophy makes the distinction between a "human act" and an "act of a human". And, St. Thomas makes the distinction that within man's nature he has the lesser natures both animal and vegetal, because he is a higher form of life comprised of the lesser. Those acts which stem from man's spiritual faculties of his intellect and will are properly "human acts". Those acts which are performed apart from this are merely "acts of a human" and considered part of his animal nature. If a man acted with the brain of an infant, or insane, or mentally defective, his actions would be considered like an animal - mere acts of a human.

J. Larrabee: The distinction is made for moral purposes. It is based on the fact that some acts of a man are not done consciously and deliberately, but merely physically, such as digestion, beating of the heart, falling down the stairs. They have no moral significance. The distinction arises from man's mixed nature, spiritual and physical.

> A Bishop of Rome has functions likewise that are strictly speaking "papal functions". But his office also has functions common among other simpler authorities that are not really strictly considered "papal function" as even an Abbot, Rector of a seminary, Prior or superior of an Order would have.

J. Larrabee: Here the analogy is not parallel. All the acts of a pope, if they are acts of government, are human acts, that is, conscious and voluntary. To distinguish them on the basis you are using here is an entirely different matter.

> The higher contains that of the lesser.

J. Larrabee: Yes, but the higher must be there to contain anything.

J. Larrabee: For instance, a man who is dead can neither perform any human act (conscious and deliberate) nor any act of a purely physical nature like those above mentioned.

J. Larrabee: Also, the higher virtually contains the lower generally, but not in regard to everything, in every case. When the lower is of a different nature, it would not necessarily hold. The papacy is constituted by jurisdiction; the offices of abbot, rector, etc. are constituted by dominative power. Their authority is over a private institution, not in the public order, like that of parents, leaving aside certain canonical powers in the external forum that may be delegated by papal authority to major superiors of certain orders. Thus, the pope has no direct authority over anyone in the Church, except in regard to a judgment made in pursuit of law. By "direct" I mean he has no power to command anyone personally, only to make laws which apply to all, or to grant indults, etc. He has no power over the person, property, or activities of any individual so long as that person is in obedience to the law. (That is why the special vow of personal obedience to the Pope, in the Jesuit consitutions, has meaning, even in comparison with other religious.) The same is true of bishops, pastors, authorities in civil government, and all who exercise jurisdiction as opposed to dominative power.

J. Larrabee: Thus it does not appear to be true that the pope possesses the powers of abbots, rectors, etc., nor does it appear that popes have actually exercised such powers, unless I am mistaken. On the other hand, powers of this nature do not seem relevant to a discussion of the Guerardist thesis anyway.

> A man who is Pope materially could only possibly have retained the functions that are lesser.

J. Larrabee: Until the possibility of this is proved, it is begging the question.

> Because of heresy even his actions that are strictly speaking "papal functions" are NOT even materially valid. That which is strictly incompatible and mutually exclusive with heresy could not exist. But that which is not strictly incompatible with the existence of heresy could. Nothing illogical.

J. Larrabee: Fact is not merely a matter of logic, of course. Even if this is possible (in the abstract), dato non concesso, it remains to be proved as actually existing. Your proofs will be considered when they are presented.
__________________________________________________________________

J. Larrabee: As Fr. Sanborn refers to canon 2197, here is the text (my translation):

"A crime [delictum] is:

"1. *Public*, if it has already been divulged, or takes place or is involved in such circumstances that it can and must prudently be judged that it will easily be divulged;

"2. *Notorious by a notoriety of law*, after sentence of a competent judge which has passed to *res judicata* [i.e. a final judgment], or after a confession by the delinquent made before the court in accordance with can. 1750;

"3. *Notorious by a notoriety of fact*, if it is publicly known, and has been committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any evasion [tergiversatione] or excused by any favorable provision of law [iuris suffragio].

"4. *Occult*, that which is not public; *materially occult*, if the crime itself is concealed; *formally occult*, if its imputability is concealed."

J. Larrabee: In regard to canon 188:4, it may be argued that the provisions of the above canon do not apply, since it is not dealing with a crime as such, or with its penalties, but merely with an act - namely, publicly defecting from the Faith. It does not seem to be an issue in this canon whether or not the act is imputable; at any rate, it is not so stated in the canon. The other sections of the same canon mention various acts, not all of which are crimes, and in any case, no particular mention is made of a requirement that a legal determination must be made whether the acts were freely performed, in full cognizance of all their consequences. These actions include joining the army, professing solemn vows of religion, attempting marriage, or transferring to another, incompatible office. Would the imputability of an attempt at marriage be required? Or is it not a question, evidently, of open actions, openly recognizable, "without any declaration being required," as the canon clearly states? Fr. Sanborn mentions an instance of a priest misspeaking himself in a sermon, but who would claim that this, IN ITSELF, constituted a defection from the Faith? It is merely a mistake, easily verifiable. On the other hand, if a bishop were to announce that he had left the Church to become a Buddhist, would anyone doubt that this canon would be effective? The wording of the canon seems to have precisely such an act in view. Would Fr. Sanborn claim that, in this case, over and beyond the act itself, more would be required? If so, the plain wording of the canon would seem to be worse than useless--downright misleading, in fact.

J. Larrabee: However, assuming this argument is invalid, and granting that an act under canon 188:4 must be imputable if it is to constitute a defection from the Faith, let us consider Fr. Sanborn's argument.

J. Larrabee: An excerpt from Fr. Sanborn's defense of the Cassiciacum Thesis, "De Papatu Materiali" (p. 62-67) - Objections Against the Second Part of the Thesis

D. Sanborn: VI. Canon 188 (4) says that he who publicly should defect from the Faith tacitly renounces his office. But the conciliar "popes" have publicly defected from the Catholic Faith. Therefore they have renounced their office tacitly. Therefore they are not popes either formally or materially.

D. Sanborn: *Resp.*: I distinguish the major: Canon 188 (4) says that he who should publicly defect from the Catholic Faith tacitly renounces his office, if his imputability is public, *I concede*; however if it is occult, *I deny.*

J. Larrabee: No such distinction is stated or implied in the law, therefore to argue this is to argue that the law is in error. It is a serious error to state as simply true what is only true with qualifications. Fr. Sanborn's argument amounts to saying that the law has committed this error.

D. Sanborn: The reason is that defection from the Faith must be legally known,

J. Larrabee: This is a gratuitous statement. Until proved it must fall, and the rest of the argument with it, since the rest depends on this. Besides, according to the above definition (2197:1), to be public in law, it is not even required that the action be actually known, much less that it be public in the everyday sense. Besides, Fr. Sanborn does not define "legally known." Presumably this must mean something beyond merely "known". Since this is not defined, the argument remains unclear. Besides, I would argue that this is begging the question, if by "legally known," a procedural requirement is to be introduced into the mental transition from a known or knowable fact (known in the plain or factual sense) to the conclusion that the office has been resigned by tacit resignation. This is what the whole argument is about.

D. Sanborn: which happens either by declaration or by notoriety. But the notoriety requires that not only the fact of the crime be publicly known, but also its imputability (Canon 2197).

J. Larrabee: But this argument is inconsistent with the plain wording of 188:4. As can be seen from the above definitions, the term "public" is far less restrictive than the term "notorious". If canon 188:4 MEANT "notorious defection from the Faith," it would have said so. Instead, it says "PUBLIC defection from the Faith." Besides, we argue that the defection of Wojtyla and others IS notorious. It is unconcealable (obviously, since they have not even tried to conceal it, and have trumpeted it to the world), and it is inexcusable by any color of law. Note further that in canon 2197, only in no. 2 (notoriety of law) is there any consideration of legal process. Since no legal procedure is stated or implied in regard to any of the other categories (public, notorious by a notoriety of fact, or occult), it is contradictory to attempt to introduce procedural considerations into them. Law and fact are opposed and mutually exclusive categories. Another way of putting this is to say that this argument reduces notoriety of fact to notoriety of law.

D. Sanborn: In the case, however, of defection from the Catholic Faith, either through heresy or through schism, it is necessary that the defection be pertinacious in order that it be imputable. Otherwise the law becomes absurd: every priest who through lack of advertence in a sermon pronouces a heresy would be guilty of notorious heresy, with all of the connected penalties, and tacitly would renounce his office.

J. Larrabee: It is evident to a normally prudent man that this act alone does not constitute defection from the Faith, since the formal element, or imputability (in this case, the rejection of the Church's teaching authority), can easily be judged to be absent, or at least doubtful, until more certain evidence can be obtained. This does not require a legal process. It is a simple moral judgment. Otherwise, Fr. Sanborn will have to maintain that, apart from formally condemned heretics, excommunicated by name by the Holy See and declared vitandi, no Catholic has any way of carrying out the divine injunction, "A heretic after one or two warnings avoid." In fact, the injunction is impossible under any circumstances, since the warnings mentioned are personal ones, not legal, official ones.

D. Sanborn: But defection from the Catholic Faith on the part of conciliar "popes,"

J. Larrabee: It is a very long jump from a priest misspeaking himself in a sermon to the conciliar "hierarchy." Without some proportion, the argument becomes implausible.

D. Sanborn: although it be public with regard to fact, is not public with regard to imputability, and therefore there is no tacit renunciation. What is public is the intention of these "popes" to promulgate errors condemned by the ecclesiastical magisterium, and a sacramental practice which is heretical and blasphemous. Because this is so, one must conclude they necessarily do not possess apostolic authority, but one cannot conclude more or less.

J. Larrabee: Why cannot one conclude, with moral certainty, that if they wish to teach contrary to the Magisterium of the Church, they evidently do not believe it? If they cannot be judged to have defected from the Faith, who could? (Leaving aside the perhaps more obvious case of a man who actually leaves the Church in the full, open sense. Of course, it is perfectly known that heretics in ecclesiastical positions are unlikely to wish to do this, for any number of reasons which appear good to themselves, particularly the perfect opportunity open to them of destroying the Church from "within".)

D. Sanborn: Not more, because competent authority alone is able to ascertain and declare legally the reality of their defection from the Catholic Faith,

J. Larrabee: This is simply to restate what is at issue. If this is intended to be an argument, it is an open petitio principii.

D. Sanborn: and not less, because it is impossible that apostolic authority, because of the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church, promulgate errors which have been condemned by the ecclesiastical magisterium, and a sacramental practice which is heretical and blasphemous.

D. Sanborn: *Instance*: But Canon 188 says that the renunciation does not require a declaration.

D. Sanborn: *Resp.*: Does not require a declaration of the vacancy of the office, if the imputable defection is notorious or declared by law, *I concede*; if the defection is not notoriously imputable, or declared, *I deny*. In other words, it is necessary that public defection from the Catholic Faith have a certain legal recognition, either by notoriety of the imputability or by legal declaration.

J. Larrabee: This is the same argument given above, with the words "legal recognition" substituted for "legally known." It is repeating a gratuitous assertion. If a legal recognition is required (which I do not concede), this is provided by the notoriety of fact existing here. The notoriety of the imputability is as recognizable from the facts of the case as is the notoriety of the deed itself. We are considering not mere bare actions in themselves, but human acts of given persons in given circumstances, which add up to a moral certainty that these men are heretics who have openly defected from the Faith. That is all that is involved in a notoriety of fact, as stated in the law.

D. Sanborn: *Instance*: But the imputability of the defection of these "popes" is notorious.

J. Larrabee: This of course is a briefer statement of my previous objection.

D. Sanborn: *Resp.*: *I deny*. In order that imputability be notorious, it is necessary that either (1) he who has pronounced the heresy publicly confess that he professes a doctrine which is against the magisterium of the Church, such as Luther; (2) when he has been warned by the authority of the Church, and the warning having been made, he publicly reject the authority.

J. Larrabee: Where is the proof for this assertion? Canon 2197 gives no basis for this argument, and unless it is proved, this argument must fall. According to this argument, no one is a heretic unless he has been formally warned, or admits that his teaching is contrary to the Magisterium. Where is this stated in the law? It would mean, once again, that the warnings against heresy directed to all the faithful by Sacred Scripture and all the moralists are vain, except in regard to an extremely minute number of people. Logically, I don't need to disprove this assertion, but it seems to me that this argument necessarily leads to the conclusion that the unity of the Church is no longer visible but comes down to purely subjective, internal factors. It seems to fly in the face of the teaching of the consensus of theologians on the nature of heresy and its consequences. It reduces heresy to merely another crime, rather than an act which of itself separates one VISIBLY AND OPENLY from the Church, a teaching firmly based in Scripture and the Fathers. It also has serious implications for the knowability of the Faith, as though one would have to be a theologian or canonist in order to recognize a heretic. Likewise, one would have to be lawyer, even a judge, to recognize a murderer, a thief, etc.

J. Larrabee: Furthermore, at this point, let us refer back to 188:4, and consider once again how, if the present argument were valid, the legislators of the Church could ever have written that public defection from the Faith led to loss of office, WITHOUT ANY DECLARATION, and by a tacit resignation ADMITTED BY THE LAW ITSELF? This argument seems to set the law against the law.

D. Sanborn: But neither one nor the other of these conditions are fulfilled in the conciliar "popes." Therefore the imputability of the defection is not notorious. *Instance*: But Canon 2200 presumes the imputability if the fact of the crime has been proved.

D. Sanborn: *Resp.*: *I distinguish.* It presumes imputability given the external violation of the law, *I concede*; it presumes imputability when the law has not been externally violated, *I deny.*

J. Larrabee: The law is not invoked at all unless there is an external violation. The meaning of this canon is that one who commits a criminal act is presumed to be responsible until the contrary is proved; but let this pass. As has been argued, pertinacity is recognizable by outward actions just as the denial of the doctrines of the Church is recognizable. The whole basis of the "Sedevacantist" argument is that the actions and omissions of conciliar "popes" and bishops are recognizable as heresy, that is, as pertinacious denials, or arising from the pertinacious denial, of the Faith. This is a conclusion that a reasonable man can and must arrive at, with a moral certainty, on the basis of known facts. It should be kept in mind that "pertinacious" does not imply that a given time must pass; merely that the denial is maintained in the face of evident proof that the Church teaches otherwise. Perhaps one could ask Fr. Sanborn: Have Montini and Wojtyla merely been misspeaking themselves over and over again for the past 34 years, and were/are they too deaf and illiterate to see or hear the admonitions of Catholics?

J. Larrabee: As a final point, the word "imputability" might be fleshed out a bit more. Canon 2199 says that imputability is involved not only in a deliberate, malicious violation of the law, but also where there is culpable ignorance or even a failure of due diligence. So, if by any means one could claim that Wojtyla isn't consciously opposing himself to the teaching of the Church, it would seem supremely difficult to deny that he has not plainly shown a culpable ignorance, and still more a total failure to take any means to determine the truth of the Church's teachings. Thus imputability is notorious (by notoriety of fact) even on this basis.

D. Sanborn: In the case of defection from the Catholic Faith, the violation of the law *involves pertinacity,* and if it should be absent, the law is not violated. Where, therefore, pertinacity is neither notorious nor declared by law, Canon 2200 is not able to be applied.

J. Larrabee: Pertinacity is a matter of fact, to be proved as such. It is not a matter of law any more than the act of denying (explicitly or implicitly) the teaching of the Church. As it is an internal matter per se, it must and can be proved by external actions. For more on pertinacity, cf. above.
__________________________________________________________________________

> I don't have time to respond appropriately, but here's Fr. Lucien's (and Bishop des Lauriers') response to your assertion that the Bull of 1559 is still in force because of its foundation in divine law.

J. Larrabee: As a logical point, it must be kept in mind that for us, it is not essential to prove that the bull is still in effect (Bellarmine does not even mention it explicitly). But our opponents must prove that it is NOT, or their position is clearly defeated. But as has already been shown, the Abbe Lucien openly admits that the key provisions of the bull, from our point of view, are indeed included in the Code. So one is hard put to see any logic in his argument.

> (Chapter IX, p.3): "It does not suffice to note, as against this objection, that the dispositions of the Constitution of Paul IV 'have their origin in divine law,' and hence are still in force. For it is in the very nature of positive law to be 'in the line' of natural or divine law. The positive law carries determinations which are necessary for the divine or natural law to be concretely applied, even though their precise nature is not fixed by the latter.

J. Larrabee: Two comments:

J. Larrabee: 1. Argument from authority: It must be repeated that the chief argument for the thesis that heretics can hold no jurisdiction in the Church is from authority. If that argument is decisive, it is useless to attempt to disprove it by arguments from reason, and smacks of heresy. To repeat, this argument is a way of "proving" that all the Popes were wrong; that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church were wrong; that the consensus of theologians and canonists is wrong; that canon law is wrong. It seems to me that one who rejects Tradition in this manner will never be lacking in arguments, and will never be convinced that his arguments prove nothing. This is like trying to argue with someone who thinks the whole case for the Traditional Mass rests on Quo Primum.

J. Larrabee: Another way of putting this is to say that it violates the basic principle of reason, Contra factum non valet illatio, loosely translated as "You can't argue against a fact." The only way to refute a proof from authority, in matters where authority is decisive (as in the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, where the authority is that of Divine Revelation), is to show that the authorities do not teach what is claimed, or to bring other authorities of greater weight. In this argument, authority is a fact. As in a trial, you cannot disprove the testimony of witnesses by arguing with them (except where their testimony can be shown to be impossible).

J. Larrabee: 2. Argument from reason: Given that it appears to me, as Bellarmine clearly implies, that this is a matter of Divine Revelation and Apostolic Tradition, even if the bull being discussed had never been issued, the arguments presented may be addressed as a matter of secondary concern, to clarify the principles involved and to prevent, if possible, uncertainty being introduced into an area which is certain. Now, if the above paragraph is examined (the point is not made very clear), it seems to be saying that we are arguing that the dispositions of the bull "have their origin in divine law." Then it goes on to say that it is in the nature of positive law to be "in the line of" natural or divine positive law. This is true, but irrelevant. The Divine Law referred to in our argument is that by which the nature of the Church as a visible institution was established, and the nature of its membership as the congregation of the faithful (of those who profess the Faith) specified. Once that was done, it is a matter of FACT that a heretic is not a member of the Church. The legal provisions of the bull imply this principle. It is not a question of mere practical implementation in line with divine law, but a necessary consequence in the order of reality itself.

> "In the case of the heretic, as a consequence of the 'divine law,' there is clearly a *certain radical incompatibility* between the condition of a heretic and ecclesiastical duties. But how this radical incompatibility leads up to the ultimate consequences (privation of office, of jurisdiction; deposition...) is something that the divine law does not determine, and furthermore, this is something that the Church has never made explicit to the degree that these determinations implicitly exist in Revelation.

J. Larrabee: The argument is continued in this paragraph. The Abbe Lucien uses the words "certain radical incompatibility" apparently to mean what I just called a necessary consequence in the order of reality itself. The incompatibility is between being a heretic (and therefore not a member of the Church, a point not mentioned here by Lucien) and holding jurisdiction in the Church. (It is by no means equivalent to the vague term "ecclesiastical duties." Everyone knows that heretics can baptize or give sacramental absolution in danger of death; certainly these are "ecclesiastical duties.") But instead of addressing the argument, he gives it a pass. To say that the divine law does not determine how this incompatibility "leads up to the ultimate consequences" is not to argue but simply to make an unsupported statement. If this is his argument, it is no more than begging the question. One also wonders how he can say the Church has never made the consequences explicit when the Code says that, by defecting from the Faith, a man loses his office by a tacit resignation accepted by the law itself, and without any declaration. One wonders how it could be made any more explicit.

J. Larrabee: Furthermore, to speak of "leading up to ultimate consequences" seems to muddy the question as to whether privation of office, etc. are the inseparable accompaniments of the prime act of heresy, or merely some result following accidentally and at a later point. But in our argument, they are merely two aspects of one reality, joined as definition and predicable accident, impossible to separate. For this reason, neither "privation" nor "deprivation" are suitable terms, since they imply a removal resulting from legal action. In fact, just as heretics leave the Church of themselves, by the very same act they leave their offices. Can they take the office with them? Is it removable from the Church? The Code has clarified this point, I think, by placing this self-deprivation in the category of tacit resignations, a point that seems to be uniformly missed by critics of Bellarmine's position.

J. Larrabee: But this point has already been made and proved by Bellarmine and others. The burden rests on Lucien to make an argument against their proofs. He has not done this, so he really has no argument at all.

> "And Paul IV does not affirm in the other parts of his Constitution that these dispositions which he draws from the revealed Deposit cannot be considered as ecclesiastical laws."

J. Larrabee: An argument from silence proves nothing. Since when does papal legislation or the Code make distinctions anyway between matters of divine institution and matters of "merely" ecclesiastical law? That is left to theological and canonical treatises, and that is what Bellarmine has proved, in his.

J. Larrabee: I'd like to offer an alternative view here. Bishops by their office have the authority (jurisdiction) to condemn heretics. If a matter is clear from Tradition (Ordinary Magisterium), or has been defined (Extraordinary Magisterium), a bishop, or a fortiori a council of bishops, is competent to act. Papal authority or confirmation is not required.

J. Larrabee: Given this, a man like K. Wojtyla who is a manifest heretic can be judged as such. Pursuant to such judgment, a declaration could be made by a council if bishops, even though imperfect, that, in light of the Church's teaching, a manifest heretic cannot be the pope or hold any other office in the Church. This would justify the council's action in trying and condemning said heretic. He could then be handed over to be burnt if the secular authorities were willing (as they are bound to do if Catholic), assuming he was in their power and he refused to repent.

J. Larrabee: The idea of a "solemn" judgment in the sense of an ex cathedra statement is not the concern here. That applies to doctrine, not to individuals accused of crimes. Also, even papal judgments of cases involving individuals are not considered to be infallible. As such, there is no ABSOLUTE obligation on Catholics to accept them as just or correct. (The same is true of court judgments in the secular order.) This would apply to any future papal judgment as to, for example, the legitimacy of the 1958 conclave. But to doubt or deny them without serious cause would be wrong, it seems to me, because it would involve presumption and resistance (at least inward) to duly constituted authority.

J. Larrabee: In these times of almost total anarchy, I think sometimes there is a tendency to forget about the ordinary authority of the lesser elements of government, in concentrating on the failure at the top. Bishops are just as much the lawful government of the Church as the Pope, though in their own limited, subordinate order.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:25 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
In my most humble opinion, the Guerardian thesis is so flawed as to be completely untenable.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:34 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
John Lane wrote:
I've yet to come across a layman Guerardian who understands it (I expect because they haven't studied philosophy), and the priests who hold it won't debate it, so I doubt you'll ever see what you're hoping for.


John Lane wrote:
Anybody interested in the Guerardian position should read the posts here from Jim Larrabee to the old Sede List, fourteen years ago. None of this tight, cogent, and I think irrefutable argument was ever answered by the Guerardians.


I am really sorry that you have not found people able to respond adequately. Unfortunately, I do not know enough the Thesis and the canon law to help you. For curiosity, what priests (who have refused to discuss) have you questioned? In any case, I do not lose hope to have a satisfactory answer. [Fr. Ricossa once said me that Fr. Guérard was certainly not infallible, but it was very difficult to catch him in error! :) ]
Anyway, if someone is willing to make synthetically an objection to the Thesis on this point, I try to turn it to some more experienced friend (layman), and smart in english language, able to respond.


Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:31 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
Ken Gordon wrote:
In my most humble opinion, the Guerardian thesis is so flawed as to be completely untenable.


I agree Ken, it is a theological novelty. While I respect Fr. Guerard des Lauriers in his attempt to solve the problem of maintaining the continuing of the papal succession and the visibility of the Church, his theory is not supported by any theologians, and does not account for the fact that the Church has already provided a remedy for our predicament.

The Church provides us a mechanism for electing a pope. Even after this length of time, the Hierarchy lives on, the numbers are diminished, but as long as one lawfully sent bishop lives, then the Hierarchy continues. With that one (hopefully more) bishop and the remaining members of the Roman Clergy, a lawful election can be held. This is the teaching of the Church, and we are on solid ground of Tradition and supported by approved texts.

JMJ,

Mike

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sun Sep 25, 2011 11:14 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
Gabriele wrote:
For curiosity, what priests (who have refused to discuss) have you questioned? In any case, I do not lose hope to have a satisfactory answer. [Fr. Ricossa once said me that Fr. Guérard was certainly not infallible, but it was very difficult to catch him in error! :) ]
Anyway, if someone is willing to make synthetically an objection to the Thesis on this point, I try to turn it to some more experienced friend (layman), and smart in english language, able to respond.


Gabriele,

Jim Larrabee and I have spoken to Bishop Sanborn, he in person and I on the telephone, at some length. He is the most responsive I have come across, but he won't engage in writing in public, which is what is really required. John Daly enjoyed an email exchange with him on another subject which he declined to agree to have published. What he may have done is publish a contrary article in Catholic Restoration when it was running, but sadly that's long defunct. I have spoken in person with Bishop McKenna at some length also when he visited here. However, he is not a theologian or canonist by training or even informal learning. His virtues are many - and chiefly humility - but he isn't able to discuss this subject fruitfully.

The laymen I have come across who claim to accept this Thesis simply do not grasp what it means. This is apparent to anybody with a little philosophy. This has produced no little humour in the past, in which as Jim Larrabee put it once, these chaps find themselves lying on the ground with their head removed unaware that they have died. John Daly once wrote in a similar vein, "Lie down, you're dead, OK?" :)

I suggest that the best starting point for any discussion is Jim Larrabee's published comments contra Sanborn and Lucien, above.

Does Fr. Ricossa have English yet? If not, could you translate for him? There's no hurry - we've been waiting fourteen years already. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:14 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
Griff Ruby wrote:
So unless some different period of time for this "predetermined time" should be specified in the document for guiding the election of a succeeding pope, this would raise one interesting question in the case of a materially elected pope who never formally accepts his office. If, for example, John XXIII or Paul VI never formally accepted their elections to the papacy (something I consider highly probable), would they not have lost whatever status such an election confers upon them after eight days, or whatever arbitrary period may have been specified in the constitution regarding the election of the Supreme Pontiff? Much as I regard the Formaliter/Materialiter position of being of some real possible merit, this does raise yet another hurdle that must be addressed by those who support it. For example, unless any "cardinals" were appointed within that eight-day (or whatever) period, even appointments to the cardinalate would be of no effect and unable to provide any basis for further material popes.


Hello Mr. Ruby!

First of all, I am not an apologist for the Cassiciacum Thesis, and I have not studied the matter deep enough to come to a final conclusion there on my part. One should also note that the thesis of Mgr. Guérard des Lauriers was altered by his followers. This became extremely clear for me in a privat conversation with Bp. Sanborn, in which he departed radically from "Guérardian" thought.

So, instead of defending the thesis, I rather explain the Guérardian position which we need to know prior to actually answering the objections you raised.

Guérard des Lauriers would hold the opinion that it is impossible for the universal Church to adhere to a false Pontiff. Cardinal Billot is very well known for holding this position:

Quote:
"At the minimum one should firmly hold as absolutely unshakable and beyond all doubt the opinion that the adherence of the universal Church is always for her the one infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and hence the existence of all the conditions required for this legitimacy. And one does not have to search far and wide to find reasons for this. It derives directly from the infallible promise and providence of Christ: The Gates of hell shall not prevail against her, and again, I shall be with you till the end of days. In point of fact, it would be one and the same thing for the Church to adhere to a false pope as it would be for her to follow a false rule of faith, because the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church is obliged to follow in believing, and certainly this is always the case, as will appear most clearly from what we say below. God can certainly permit that on occasion the vacancy of the Holy See should persist for a long time. He can also permit that a doubt could arise about the legitimacy of a given person who was elected. But He cannot allow that the entire Church would accept as a true Pontiff one who is not truly and legitimately such." ("De Ecclesia Christi," Rome, 5th edition, p. 635)


The question for the legitimacy of the Pontificate of Papa Roncalli would be settled then pretty much, if there is no other strong argument in disfavor of his Papacy. We all know that there was no resistance prior to the election of Paul VI.
The possibility of a secret non-acceptance of the Papal office would be very difficult to maintain.

One could also say that the non-acceptance of the elected candidate to the Papacy is the essential point which makes his Papacy merely material.

Then there would certainly be enough Cardinals ready for the election of John Paul II.

But about ten years ago or so there was a completely new input to the thesis of Cassiciacum, namely the possibility of material Popes appointing Cardinals to secure the material succession to the See of St. Peter. Bp. Sanborn´s approach can be read here: http://www.sodalitiumpianum.com/index.php?pid=27


Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:49 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele,

Jim Larrabee and I have spoken to Bishop Sanborn, he in person and I on the telephone, at some length. He is the most responsive I have come across, but he won't engage in writing in public, which is what is really required. John Daly enjoyed an email exchange with him on another subject which he declined to agree to have published. What he may have done is publish a contrary article in Catholic Restoration when it was running, but sadly that's long defunct. I have spoken in person with Bishop McKenna at some length also when he visited here. However, he is not a theologian or canonist by training or even informal learning. His virtues are many - and chiefly humility - but he isn't able to discuss this subject fruitfully.

The laymen I have come across who claim to accept this Thesis simply do not grasp what it means. This is apparent to anybody with a little philosophy. This has produced no little humour in the past, in which as Jim Larrabee put it once, these chaps find themselves lying on the ground with their head removed unaware that they have died. John Daly once wrote in a similar vein, "Lie down, you're dead, OK?" :)


Dear John,
I understand. And yet I think there is something wrong. Everything, I think, can be said of Bp. Sanborn except that he is an unprepared man or a person who fails to justify its positions… Maybe there is a misunderstanding regarding the premises: for exemple on the actual validity (rectius in italian “la vigenza”, the force of law) of the bull Cum ex Apostolatus or the right comprension of the philosophical distinction materialiter/formaliter… Clearly, I speak as an ignorant!

John Lane wrote:
I suggest that the best starting point for any discussion is Jim Larrabee's published comments contra Sanborn and Lucien, above.

Does Fr. Ricossa have English yet? If not, could you translate for him? There's no hurry - we've been waiting fourteen years already. :)


Fr. Ricossa understans English, but he does not write it. I could ask him to write something on this point (in italian or in latin too), but I doubt he has time to write something formal or official (he teaches at the seminary and must to say the Holy Mass every sunday at four hundred kilometers from the Institute; by now his magazine – Sodalitium – is published very rarely, I think once a year with difficulty…). However, it is right that you have an answer or at least that there is an honest debate on the problem. I care. So I try to ask a person (a layman) who could help us. He will accept? I don’t know. I hope. Cordially


Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:00 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
Let's put things in order prior to entering into any of this.

First, in order to show that any new theory is worth considering, the necessity of which it is meant to be the solution must be demonstrated. In this case I deny that there is any demonstrated necessity. The continuity of the Church as a visible institution is not in doubt, even if Paul VI was not pope. Neither has it been shown that all of the appointments by Paul VI of bishops and cardinals were invalid. Especially relevant here is the law regarding supplied jurisdiction, which has not, as far as I'm aware, been addressed by the Guerardians (unless you take the text of Cum ex apostolatus as final, which would be odd from them particularly, since they reject that it is in toto divine law - and I agree with that - so how can they rely on it for this question?).

Further, even supposing the absence of any cardinals, the theologians give several alternative ways in which a pope can be elected, including the election devolving upon the Roman clergy generally, or upon all the bishops of the world in an imperfect general council. These means have not been addressed by the Guerardians either. The importance of this cannot be over-emphasised, because it illustrates the utter invalidity of their approach. It's really just a form of contempt for the Tradition of the Church. The SSPX theory by which Modernists are given an excuse from actual heresy by virtue of their bad philosophical formation is of a similar water, but frankly it's noble and chaste compared with the Guerardian theorising.

Second, the thesis of a heretical pope is commonly found in theology, and as in most theological theses the majority of the ground is universally agreed. The Guerardians ignore or reject this entire theological landscape!

Thirdly, the Church's teachings on heresy and how it is known, and the effects it has on membership and the possession of an ecclesiastical office, are rejected by the Guerardians. You can see this in Bishop Sanborn's Cassicicum Thesis explanation. Jim Larrabee shredded these aspects of the case and his objections have never been answered. Incidentally, the objections of Jim Larrabee were only those which were most devastating to the case put forward by Bishop Sanborn. Many others could be put, including refuting the notion that one without an office can nevertheless exercise some power properly belonging to it - such as appointing others to an office. The only way such a notion could be defended would be an appeal to supplied jurisdiction, but this they refuse to do. Instead, they invent yet another novelty.

Fourthly, Bishop Sanborn's presentation contains no references. The problem is perceived most clearly when you look at something like his claims regarding "designation" by conclaves. There is plenty of historical, theological and canonical material respecting conclaves available, obviously. Yet Bishop Sanborn makes statements, such as that an electee to the papacy who refuses the appointment retains "designation" until it is taken from him by the electors, without the slightest reference to any theological or canonical authority. I think that his claim is entirely false, however it should not even attract a refutation, since it is just an ipse dixit. For now, let me simply point out that if a man refuses an office, such as the papacy, there is no further "legal" process required to remove from him the offer of the office. It is offered, he either accepts or rejects it. I am not aware of, and I seriously doubt there is any evidence for, a conclave going through any procedure to declare a non-accepted "designation" null, prior to conducting a new round of voting. Yet that is precisely what Bishop Sanborn's theory would produce in practice.

I outline these points, even though none of them are needed until the first is properly dealt with, to illustrate what a complex of novelties arises once we launch off into the deep of unnecessary theories.

The whole thing is so unreal it hardly ever touches the ground, and on those few on which it does the result is a violent collision with both historical fact and theological science.

Let's see the proof that the theory is required. And let's see some evidence that Guerardians answer objections, by getting somebody to answer Jim Larrabee. Since you probably don't know him, and to forestall the usual reply that people who don't accept Guerardianism are lacking in philosophical formation, Jim's claim to expertise on that score is superior to any of the priests who accept the theory. He was a Jesuit for nine years (he was ordained to minor orders) and his academic specialty during that extensive period was Scholastic Philosophy.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:21 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
Thanks for making order, John. Your summary is very good.
I do not question the philosophical competences of Mr. Larrabee and I am pleased for his curriculum.
I have contacted a friend by e-mail. I have presented him the terms of the issue by showing the link to your last post, which summed up very well the previous discussion. So I do not know if he has read the entire thread.
He sent me nine quick observations that, if do not address the issue in a systematic way, perhaps they may be of interest to you and to constitute the beginning of a fruitful dialogue.
Very cordially.

______


I. “First, in order to show that any new theory is worth considering, the necessity of which it is meant to be the solution must be demonstrated.” This is sheer Pragmatism. A new theory is worth considering in its own right, regardless of whether it solves anything. Apart from that, the Cassiciacum Thesis does solve the question of how the divinely instituted hierarchical nature of the Church subsists in our days: neither in act, nor in nothing, but in potency.

II. “The continuity of the Church as a visible institution is not in doubt, even if Paul VI was not pope.” The Catholic Church in its formal apostolicity has ceased to be a visible institution; what is left visible are her material designations to bishoprics including the Roman one.

III. “Neither has it been shown that all of the appointments by Paul VI of bishops and cardinals were invalid.” This proves the Thesis right. The only way the appointments made by a non-pope can be valid, is in their material aspect.

IV. “Further, even supposing the absence of any cardinals, the theologians give several alternative ways in which a pope can be elected, including the election devolving upon the Roman clergy generally, or upon all the bishops of the world in an imperfect general council. These means have not been addressed by the Guerardians either.” Untrue, Guerardians have indeed addressed the means of election devolving upon bishops in an imperfect council. And apart from that, the more prominent members of the Roman clergy are cardinals themselves. So there is nothing left unaddressed by Guerardians here.

V. “the thesis of a heretical pope is commonly found in theology, and as in most theological theses the majority of the ground is universally agreed. The Guerardians ignore or reject this entire theological landscape!” Untrue. The Guerardians view the habitual heretical acts of a pope-elect as an obstacle to their receiving divine Authority and a proof of their formal non-papality.

VI. “the Church’s teachings on heresy and how it is known, and the effects it has on membership and the possession of an ecclesiastical office, are rejected by the Guerardians. You can see this in Bishop Sanborn’s Cassicicum Thesis explanation.” Now in his article “Vatican II, the Pope and SSPX”, Mgr. Sanborn says:
“The Catholic Patriarch of Constantinople in 428 A.D. espoused the heresy that Our Lady was not the Mother of God. After he preached this from the pulpit, the Catholic people would have nothing to do with him, would not attend his Masses, and said, “We have an Emperor, but no bishop.” And this was before he was officially excommunicated by the Church. While this case concerns a bishop and not a pope, the principle is the same: the promulgation of heresy is incompatible with the possession of the authority of Christ over the flock. If it was true for this bishop Nestorius, it is all the more true for him who has the care of the whole flock.”

VII. “the objections of Jim Larrabee were only those which were most devastating to the case put forward by Bishop Sanborn.” Mr. Lane does not provide us with the objections of Jim Larrabee.

VIII. Many others could be put, including refuting the notion that one without an office can nevertheless exercise some power properly belonging to it — such as appointing others to an office.” Mr. Lane contradicts himself, for he earlier said: “Paul VI was not pope. Neither has it been shown that all of the appointments by Paul VI of bishops and cardinals were invalid.”

IX. “Bishop Sanborn makes statements, such as that an electee to the papacy who refuses the appointment retains “designation” until it is taken from him by the electors, without the slightest reference to any theological or canonical authority.” Mgr. Sanborn does not refer to refusal of papal appointment, but to unwillingness to procure the Good of the Church in papal capacity, which unwillingness does not take away the designation but does impede the reception of divine Authority and does prove the formal non-papality of the electee. There is more than “slightest” reference to this: the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Can 183 §1.: “Amittitur officium ecclesiasticum renuntiatione, privatione, amotione, translatione lapsu temporis praefiniti.”


Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:35 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
Thank you, my friend. It is good finally to receive some replies. Please thank your friend for me.

Gabriele wrote:
I. “First, in order to show that any new theory is worth considering, the necessity of which it is meant to be the solution must be demonstrated.” This is sheer Pragmatism. A new theory is worth considering in its own right, regardless of whether it solves anything. Apart from that, the Cassiciacum Thesis does solve the question of how the divinely instituted hierarchical nature of the Church subsists in our days: neither in act, nor in nothing, but in potency.


Not pragmatism, reason. Why would one invent a new theory unless he saw a problem? I think this answer to my objection does not comprehend the objection. Let me put it in very simple terms. A new theory is an answer to a question. What is the question?

Gabriele wrote:
II. “The continuity of the Church as a visible institution is not in doubt, even if Paul VI was not pope.” The Catholic Church in its formal apostolicity has ceased to be a visible institution; what is left visible are her material designations to bishoprics including the Roman one.


I would characterise that assertion as heretical. The indefectibility of the Church in all of her essential prerogatives is indefectibility in those prerogatives considered formally. Just as a pope materialiter is not actually a pope, so a Church apostolic materialiter is not apostolic.

Incidentally, I doubt that Guerard would have made that statement. However I agree that it is necessarily implied by his thesis. Terrifying!

Gabriele wrote:
III. “Neither has it been shown that all of the appointments by Paul VI of bishops and cardinals were invalid.” This proves the Thesis right. The only way the appointments made by a non-pope can be valid, is in their material aspect.


This contradicts Canon Law. Canon 209 states that the Church supplies jurisdiction in cases of common error or positive and probable doubt of fact or law. Paul VI was not pope, but there was certainly common error about the matter!

Gabriele wrote:
IV. “Further, even supposing the absence of any cardinals, the theologians give several alternative ways in which a pope can be elected, including the election devolving upon the Roman clergy generally, or upon all the bishops of the world in an imperfect general council. These means have not been addressed by the Guerardians either.” Untrue, Guerardians have indeed addressed the means of election devolving upon bishops in an imperfect council. And apart from that, the more prominent members of the Roman clergy are cardinals themselves. So there is nothing left unaddressed by Guerardians here.


I would like to see this material, if possible. For now, let it suffice to point out that anyone who receives first tonsure in the diocese of Rome is a member of the Roman Clergy, so if the Cardinals are unavailable or do not exist due to heresy, what is to stop the junior clergy who have the faith from acting to elect a pope?

Gabriele wrote:
V. “the thesis of a heretical pope is commonly found in theology, and as in most theological theses the majority of the ground is universally agreed. The Guerardians ignore or reject this entire theological landscape!” Untrue. The Guerardians view the habitual heretical acts of a pope-elect as an obstacle to their receiving divine Authority and a proof of their formal non-papality.


What you are saying is that the effects of heresy (loss of membership in the Church, with the consequent radical incapacity for the possession of an office in the Church) as described in the theology treatises are ignored by the Guerardians, and instead they develop their own idea - viz, that heresy itself is an obex to the reception of an office. Further, the theologians do not merely say that a heretic fails to receive authority formally, they say that a heretic cannot receive authority, period. The Guerardian theory therefore differs explicitly and importantly from the tradition of the Church as expressed in the approved theology works.

Gabriele wrote:
VI. “the Church’s teachings on heresy and how it is known, and the effects it has on membership and the possession of an ecclesiastical office, are rejected by the Guerardians. You can see this in Bishop Sanborn’s Cassicicum Thesis explanation.” Now in his article “Vatican II, the Pope and SSPX”, Mgr. Sanborn says:
“The Catholic Patriarch of Constantinople in 428 A.D. espoused the heresy that Our Lady was not the Mother of God. After he preached this from the pulpit, the Catholic people would have nothing to do with him, would not attend his Masses, and said, “We have an Emperor, but no bishop.” And this was before he was officially excommunicated by the Church. While this case concerns a bishop and not a pope, the principle is the same: the promulgation of heresy is incompatible with the possession of the authority of Christ over the flock. If it was true for this bishop Nestorius, it is all the more true for him who has the care of the whole flock.”


This is a great example of what I mean. Nestorius didn't just lose his office formally, and some undefined legal process then deprived him of his office "materially" - he lost his office totally, prior to any excommunication or judicial sentence. Bellarmine uses this example as proof of his thesis, which is incompatible with the Guerardian theory.

Gabriele wrote:
VII. “the objections of Jim Larrabee were only those which were most devastating to the case put forward by Bishop Sanborn.” Mr. Lane does not provide us with the objections of Jim Larrabee.


Yes, they are linked above. Here is the link again: viewtopic.php?p=788#p788 (Edit: I've now re-formatted Jim's comments and inserted them in the post above from which they were originally linked. Click this link to go up the page to the re-formatted version: viewtopic.php?p=9600#p9600 .)


Gabriele wrote:
VIII. Many others could be put, including refuting the notion that one without an office can nevertheless exercise some power properly belonging to it — such as appointing others to an office.” Mr. Lane contradicts himself, for he earlier said: “Paul VI was not pope. Neither has it been shown that all of the appointments by Paul VI of bishops and cardinals were invalid.”


Not sure what the contradiction is. I am saying what St. Thomas says, which is that non-members of the Church cannot possess habitual jurisdiction. It is also true that a non-member can exercise supplied jurisdiction. There is no contradiction. The Guerardians, however, say that a non-pope cannot exercise supplied jurisdiction yet he can appoint men to the cardinalate. This is a senseless novelty, no?

Gabriele wrote:
IX. “Bishop Sanborn makes statements, such as that an electee to the papacy who refuses the appointment retains “designation” until it is taken from him by the electors, without the slightest reference to any theological or canonical authority.” Mgr. Sanborn does not refer to refusal of papal appointment, but to unwillingness to procure the Good of the Church in papal capacity, which unwillingness does not take away the designation but does impede the reception of divine Authority and does prove the formal non-papality of the electee. There is more than “slightest” reference to this: the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Can 183 §1.: “Amittitur officium ecclesiasticum renuntiatione, privatione, amotione, translatione lapsu temporis praefiniti.”


Canon 183 refers to the loss of an office. Neither does it refer to any lack of the will to procure the good of the Church. But let that pass for now. One must possess an office before it can be lost. But in any case, the point of the objection is that this idea that a "designation" persists indefinitely until withdrawn by the appointer (or electors) is a novelty which finds no support in history or law. Quite the contrary. Nor does it find any support in reason.

I hope that the meaning of the objections is clearer now.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:16 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
First of all, it should be completely understood by anyone who "reads" Canon Law, that according to Pietro Cardinal Gasparri, who compiled the 1917 Code of Canon Law, no single Canon stands completely on its own, but must be interpreted in relation to many others.

Secondly, Chapter 2 of the 1917 Code is entitled, "On the loss of ecclesiastical office."

The first Canon in this section is Canon 183. Here it is in its entirety:

Canon 183.
Paragraph 1. Ecclesiastical office is lost by resignation, privation, removal, transfer, or lapse of a predetermined time.

Paragraph 2. Ecclesiastical office is not lost by the termination of the authority of the Superior by whom the grant was made, unless the law provides otherwise or in the grant [of office] the clause at our good pleasure or its equivalent is present.

Canons 184. 185. 186. and 187 concern only public and clear RESIGNATION from office.

Canon 188, however, it seems to me, would apply to this discussion:

Canon 188.
Any office become vacant upon the fact and without any declaration (!) by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
4: Publicly defects from the Catholic faith;
5. ...
6. ...
7. ...
8. ...

Source:"The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law" by Dr. Edward N. Peters, Curator

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:11 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
Thanks Ken, would you mind please posting the rest of the list from Canon 188? I think it helps to make clear that heresy as a crime is not what the law has in view, rather it is the mere fact that heresy has specific effects. In this case, public heresy. The effect? Loss of membership and therefore a tacit resignation of all offices.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:30 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
See above (viewtopic.php?p=9600#p9600) for Jim Larrabee's comments, now re-formatted and inserted in the post from which they were originally linked.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:48 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
John Lane wrote:
Thanks Ken, would you mind please posting the rest of the list from Canon 188?


I don't mind a bit :D

John Lane wrote:
I think it helps to make clear that heresy as a crime is not what the law has in view, rather it is the mere fact that heresy has specific effects. In this case, public heresy. The effect? Loss of membership and therefore a tacit resignation of all offices.


Agreed.

OK. Here it is:

Canon 188.
Any office become vacant upon the fact and without any declaration (!) by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
1. Makes religious profession with due regard for the prescription of Canon 584 concerning benefices;
2. Within the useful time established by law or, legal provision lacking, as determined by the Ordinary, fails to take possession of the office;
3. Accepts another ecclesiastical office incompatible with the prior, and has obtained peaceful possession of [the other office];
4: Publicly defects from the Catholic faith;
5. Contracts marriage even, as they say, merely civilly;
6. Against the prescription of Canon 141, freely gives his name to the secular army;
7. Disposes of ecclesiastical habit on his own authority and without just cause, unless, having been warned by the Ordinary, he resumes [wearing it] within a month of having received the warning;
8. Deserts illegitimately the residence to which he is bound and, having received a warning from the Ordinary and not being detained by a legitimate impediment, neither appears nor answers within an appropriate time as determined by the Ordinary.

Source:"The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law" by Dr. Edward N. Peters, Curator

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:06 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Wow! How anyone could possibly support the Guerardian/Des Lauriers/Cassiciacum Thesis after reading Jim Larabee's rebuttal is simply beyond me! :shock:

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:12 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
I think this may be interesting as well:


Mc Devitt, “The renunciation of an Ecclesiastical office” CUA 1946 pag 115/7, says:

Quote:
“It is to be noted that every type of offices becomes vacant by means of tacit renunciation when the incumbent places one of the acts specified in cn 188, for the canon uses the words “quaelibet officia”. Likewise all clerics come under the prescriptions of this canon since the canon makes no distinction. While Cardinals are not subject to the penal law unless they are expressly mentioned (2227.2), the writer believes that they are subject to the prescription of canon 188 without any such special mention, since in his opinion this canon is not a penal canon. It is true that some of the acts enumerated in canon 188 constitute delicts, and have special penalties attached to them, but the effect of a tacit renunciation is not to be considered in the nature of canonical penalty.
In treating of public defection from the faith, Coronata notes that the tacit renunciation which results in consequence of this defection is not strictly the effect of a penal sanction (Instit. IV, n: 1864). This statement is quite true. Certainly the tacit renunciation cannot be considered a penalty for a religious profession, which according to cn 188.1 effects a tacit renunciation. There is certainly nothing in such an act that would warrant a penalty. Even with regard to the acts in cn 188 which constitute crime the writer believes that the tacit renunciation is not inflicted as a penalty. This fact seems quite clear to the writer, especially in view of the manner in which the codes refers to the tacit renunciation in the cn which treat of penalties.
The quotation from the following two canons will serve to demonstrate the definition that the code makes. Cn 2168.2 in treating of the procedure against non resident clerics, states the following:
“In monitione Ordinarius recolat poenas quas incurrunt clerici non residentes itemque praescriptum cn 188.8.”

Cn 2314 in dealing with the crime of those who are guilty of heresy or apostasy reads as follows:
1.3 Si sectae acatholicae nomen dederint vel publice adheserint, ipso facto infames sunt, et firmo praescripto cn 188.4, clerici, monitione incassum praemissa, degradentur.
The same procedure is followed in the other canons which make mention of a tacit renunciation. It’s plainly evident that a distinction is being made between the threatened or enacted penalty on the one hand and a tacit renunciation on the other: nowhere in the code is the tacit renunciation called a penalty, it’s always set off in a separate ablative clause when it is enumerated with penalties. For this reason the writer is of the opinion that a tacit renunciation is not to be classified as a penalty. The authors do not expressly designate it as a penalty, but they do list it along with the penalties when they consider the juridical effects consequent upon specific crimes. (Vermesch- Creusen. Epitome III; 513, Coronata, Institutiones IV num. 2178, 2196).
The direct purpose of this discussion was to demonstrate that Cardinals are subject to the prescriptions of cn 188. Consequently the presentation of the arguments served the further purpose of clarifying that in this canon the law is not imposing a penalty, but is rather accepting the specified acts as tantamount to an express renunciation of office. It may here be noted also that a tacit renunciation and a privation of the office are very similar, but that the law nevertheless consistently places them in different categories.”


This is quite clear, isn´t it?

Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:15 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Cristian Jacobo wrote:

This is quite clear, isn´t it?

Cristian


Quite. In as few words as possible, Canon 188 is simply stating a FACT, not imposing a penalty.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:24 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Ken Gordon wrote:
In as few words as possible, Canon 188 is simply stating a FACT, not imposing a penalty.


I was having this discussion the other day with a gentleman who explained that "we" simply do not have the authority to judge the pope noting that even the 1917 Code of Canon Law prohibits anyone from judging the "First See". Though I didn't have the reference, I accepted that this is indeed a precept of Canon Law.

On the other hand, I objected that we are not "judging the Holy See", we are merely acknowledging a fact. I likened his position to an individual who refuses to come in out of the rain because he claims that it is not raining since the state-licensed weather man on the television news had not acknowledged the rain and had actually declared that the weather is clear and sunshining. In the case of the pope, we recognize the fact of rain and seek shelter within tradition; he dances merrily in the rain content in the knowledge that the sun is shining since no one with authority has (or even can) declare that it is really raining.

My argument did not make an impact and he still maintains that I am not allowed recognize the truth.


Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:30 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
TKGS wrote:
I was having this discussion the other day with a gentleman who explained that "we" simply do not have the authority to judge the pope noting that even the 1917 Code of Canon Law prohibits anyone from judging the "First See". Though I didn't have the reference, I accepted that this is indeed a precept of Canon Law.


Here is a very clear example of the problem that semantics can bring forward: the word "judge", or the phrase "to judge" can have several meanings, and many people confuse, or CHOOSE to confuse, the different meanings: it can mean "to make up one's mind either for or against" something, "to accept or reject" some FACT (as you bring out below), or "to impose a penalty in a court of law", which your opponent was using as HIS definition.

He is right when he says that no one may judge the First See, in the sense that no one has the authority to examine and condemn or release a True Pope. He can only be so "judged" by a higher authority, and there is no such authority here on earth. He can only be "judged" by God.

On the other hand, we most certainly have the right, and as Catholics, the DUTY, to "judge" whether or not an action or a fact is right or wrong, or "Catholic" or not.

The above problems are why, when arguing with such people, we MUST "define our terms" so as to preclude, if possible, such shenanigans.

TKGS wrote:
On the other hand, I objected that we are not "judging the Holy See", we are merely acknowledging a fact.


Exactly!!!

TKGS wrote:
I likened his position to an individual who refuses to come in out of the rain because he claims that it is not raining since the state-licensed weather man on the television news had not acknowledged the rain and had actually declared that the weather is clear and sunshining. In the case of the pope, we recognize the fact of rain and seek shelter within tradition; he dances merrily in the rain content in the knowledge that the sun is shining since no one with authority has (or even can) declare that it is really raining.

My argument did not make an impact and he still maintains that I am not allowed to recognize the truth.


Your argument is completely cogent and accurate. It is obvious to me that he is either a fool, or chooses NOT to understand and accept your argument, probably because (like my brothers and sisters) it would be almost unbearable and terrifying for him to do so, or God has simply not given him the graces to see and accept the truth.

"...and God will give them an operation of error to believe lying..."

The best thing we can do for such people is to pray hard for them, to the Holy Ghost and their Guardian Angels.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:16 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
John Lane wrote:
Thank you, my friend. It is good finally to receive some replies. Please thank your friend for me.

...

I hope that the meaning of the objections is clearer now.



Thanks for the rejoinders, John. Personally, I still have to read and understand them quietly.
I copy below another consideration of my friend.


_______

Logic of causation refutes in a twinkling of an eye several objections to the Cassiciacum Thesis. The starting point is the ontological and usually chronological difference between Designation delivered by the Church and Authority delivered by God, to which is added the link of Consent delivered by the designee.

(D: Designation. A: Authority. C: Consent to steer the Church adequately)

“D is not a complete cause of A” implies “notA is not a complete cause of notD”
“C is not a necessary cause of D” implies “notC is not a complete cause of notD”
“D (complemented by C) is a partial cause of A” implies “D (complemented by notC) is not a partial cause of A”


Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:14 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Thank you, my friend. It is good finally to receive some replies. Please thank your friend for me.
...
I hope that the meaning of the objections is clearer now.


Thanks for the rejoinders, John. Personally, I still have to read and understand them quietly.
I copy below another consideration of my friend.
_______

Logic of causation refutes in a twinkling of an eye several objections to the Cassiciacum Thesis. The starting point is the ontological and usually chronological difference between Designation delivered by the Church and Authority delivered by God, to which is added the link of Consent delivered by the designee.

(D: Designation. A: Authority. C: Consent to steer the Church adequately)

“D is not a complete cause of A” implies “notA is not a complete cause of notD”
“C is not a necessary cause of D” implies “notC is not a complete cause of notD”
“D (complemented by C) is a partial cause of A” implies “D (complemented by notC) is not a partial cause of A”


Flawed: D has no bearing whatever on A. D is not only not a COMPLETE cause of A, but is NO cause of A. A comes from God alone. The Church, of course, may designate to whom God's authority can be given (....whom you bind on earth, is bound also in heaven...). But the designation and the authority do not ORIGINATE from the same source. The Church is NOT God.

C, at least the "consent" part of it, IS a necessary cause of D IN SOME CASES, since Canon Law makes this requirement quite clear. See Canon 188 paragraph 2, for starters.

D (complemented by C) is NOT a partial cause of A, since D has nothing whatever to do with A, therefore C can have nothing whatever to do with A.

D is only an indication that A has been given in a certain case to a certain person IFF (IF and ONLY IF) the necessary requirements have been met, and remains only if those continue to be met.

Sorry. In my opinion, he is totally wrong. Furthermore, although I certainly do not know the man, I suspect that since he cannot convince you with facts, he is attempting to snow you with....fertilizer. :lol:

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:43 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
Ken Gordon wrote:
since he cannot convince you with facts


Actually, you hit the nail on the head.

We believe what the Church teaches because God revealed it. Theology is the scientific presentation and analysis of the teaching of the Church - that is, divine revelation. For this reason the facts of the science of theology are the truths of revelation. Let me put that in different words, since it is so important. The data of theological science are the truths of the faith. And again, in theology the teachings of the Church are facts. The same is true, because of the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church, of her laws and practices. These are theological data, facts.

Now, this fundamental reality has numerous consequences, one of which is that Catholics instinctively ask, when confronted with any problem of religion, what does the Church teach, what are the Church's laws, what do the Church's authorised experts say, what has the Church done in the past? See St. Thomas where his data - that is, his proof of any thesis - generally takes the form of "But the Church does X" or a similar factual statement. That's it. Then he explains and draws conclusions.

Another consequence is that philosophy, that is, the science of natural reason, is the handmaid of theology. That is, it serves theological science.

Now the entire Guerardian edifice is constructed with scant reference to the facts, as found in St. Thomas, Bellarmine, and the rest of the Doctors, as found in Church history, as found in the practice of the Church. Instead, it relies upon abstract philosophical analysis, with a heavy sprinkling of analogies. Analogies don't prove anything, of course, they only illustrate things. Which is precisely why the Guerardians use them. I don't meant they are not sincere, I merely mean that if they consulted theology and canon law manuals instead of dreaming of analogies between the hylomorphic nature of physical beings and the pure idea which is authority, they would struggle to continue believing in the Cassiciacum Thesis. It doesn't touch the world of fact, except occasionally where it collides violently with it.

This is why Bishop Sanborn says that a designation once given persists until it is taken away by the one who gave it. It's philosophically plausible. It makes sense. In the abstract. Yet it isn't true. It isn't factual. It isn't what happens when a man refuses the papacy and the cardinals go back to conduct another round of voting. The refusal of the offer is taken as the extinction of the offer. Now this also makes sense, it fits with everything we know about human affairs and it doesn't pose any difficulties in reason. But the Guerardians can't get that far to see that this is true because they don't make fact their touchstone.

The same is true of their inability to accept that a heretic can be known without any authoritative warnings. The authors are clear enough. The law is explicit. But they can't see how it could be so and perhaps they think that if this were true then chaos would result. So they develop their own theory.

The same syndrome leads them to read Canon 188 and refuse to accept what it says. To them the words "without any declaration" must mean somehow "after a declaration." It must be so because the Church is governed by authority and if authority hasn't spoken then there will be chaos. Which as a pure abstraction sounds reasonable. Yet it isn't true. It isn't factual.

Canon 2197 poses the same problem for them. It recognises open actions as "notorious in law" even in cases where there has been no intervention by authority. But they cannot accept the plain meaning of the words, because they don't fit preconceived abstract notions.

The same cause is at work in their treatment of why Paul VI wasn't pope. They agree with us that he could not have been, but instead of looking at the best authorities and studying them and believing them, they come up with this novelty, that he didn't will the good of the Church. So they go from having to explain the Church's doctrine on heresy and how it is known, for which we have countless solid and highly developed sources (theological and canonical), numerous clear historical examples, and the constant practice of the Church, to a pure abstraction for which there is no shred of theological or canonical textual material to which one can refer for proof.

Bellarmine says that public heretics are incapable of sustaining habitual jurisdiction because they are out of the Church, so that a public heretic automatically loses any offices he holds without any intervening declaration. The Guerardians say you can't be sure anybody's a heretic unless he's judged by the Church and the reason that a heretic loses his office is because somebody in authority in the Church takes it from him. The two theses are utterly incompatible, yet one rests on the facts at every point, whilst the other collides with them. Further, and I repeat, the Guerardian theory doesn't attempt to appeal to the facts. It argues virtually entirely in the abstract.

Just to ensure that this explanation, which I have blurted out in a few minutes so I apologise for its roughness, isn't taken as disrespectful of these men, I should add a couple of points. First, I find the Guerardian priests that I have met to be some of the very best priests, in my opinion. You couldn't find a better priest than Fr. Ricossa or Fr. Belmont. Bishop Sanborn has, I think all agree, numerous virtues. I haven't met him but I have spoken to him and he is polite, erudite, a pleasure to deal with. Bishop McKenna is humility personified, humility as everybody knows being the most crucial of all virtues, the very soil of all others. By all reports, Guerard himself was saintly. Off with the fairies, but saintly.

Second, how do such men end up accepting the Guerardian theory? My view is that it goes back to Econe in the 'seventies, where they all learned the fundamental error that heretics are impossible to identify unless the Church judges. Perhaps compounding this, or perhaps causing it, was the deceptiveness of Paul VI with his hand-wringing over the devastation of the Church and his reliance upon others to do most of the dirty work. Interestingly, the SSPX clergy generally hold the same fundamental error, despite the publication of compelling proofs of the opposite by the likes of Da Silveira (Essay on Heresy). Da Silveira, by the way, was Bishop de Castro Mayer's collaborator. It is therefore interesting that de Castro Mayer didn't suffer from the Econe error and therefore wanted to declare the See of Rome vacant. Was the overly abstract theorist Guerard responsible for the Econe error? Perhaps, he was a professor of theology there. It will be a fascinating study for future Church historians, no doubt.

And I can't resist mentioning in this context that other abstract-argued-but-incompatible-with-Church-history-and-doctrine theory, the anti-una cum position. Same source - Guerard - and the same characteristics. No real authoritative sources, seems plausible in the abstract, and once convinced its partisans are immovable.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:21 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Mike has just posted a CUA study on Elections.

This is opportune, and I draw interested parties' attention to this chapter on the Material Cause of Elections - viewtopic.php?p=9725#p9725

This being a canonical study the theological foundations of these matters are not primarily in view, the law is. For this reason caution should be taken in using this as a source on the heretic-pope thesis. Nevertheless a good example of what I have argued above concerning the data of theology vs the Cassiciacum Thesis is the following.

Quote:
These conditions supposed, we now logically pass to the treatment of those which pertain to ecclesiastical elections in particular, the first and foremost of which is faith, for faith is the foundation of the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy. Those who are wanting in faith are either they who have never been baptized, or they who baptized have afterwards lost the faith.

Persons not baptized are ineligible to all ecclesiastical functions. For not being members of the Church, they are incapable of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and administration, and hence if elected to an ecclesiastical office, such election would be invalid by divine law. Conversion to the faith, however, renders them and their baptized descendents eligible. Special legislation of some religious institutes exclude the descendents of Jews and Saracens from all dignities. Clement VIII ordained that in the kingdom of Portugal descendants of Hebrews to the seventh generation were ineligible to all cathedral dignities, the principal collegiate dignities, parishes and benefices. Neophytes, or adults recently baptized, are also ineligible. The length of time in which they remain in the class of neophytes is left to the judgment of the bishop, and during that time he can for no consideration grant a dispensation from the irregularity under which they labor.1 Catechumens are for a greater reason ineligible. But children of neophytes and catechumens baptized before the use of reason are eligible.

The election of a heretic, according to canon law, is null and void. It can be validly confirmed by the Pope, but the confirmation strictly speaking is illicit.2 Those also who defend, favour or harbour heretics, together with their children to the second generation, are ineligible.3 But a child is not to be deprived of a benefice obtained before his father's relapse into heresy. Schismatics, if at the same time heretics, being subject to all the penalties of heretics, are therefore ineligible. The same is true of schismatics who are not heretics, and they remain ineligible even if they repent and become reconciled to the Church. If the schism be public, the pope alone can dispense; if occult, bishops can dispense by virtue of indult from the Council of Trent.4


Now recall that this is an explanation of the material cause of elections. That is, of the conditions which are necessary for an electee to be proper matter for election. A heretic is not proper matter for election. Canonically, because the law says so. Theologically, because he is not a member of the Church and is therefore incapable of possessing jurisdiction. If one were to apply the hylomorphic framework by analogy, we would say that if electors attempted to elect a heretic to an office he would not be able to accept the office because he is not appropriate matter able to receive the form. The formal cause would be frustrated in its effect, because this matter could not receive the form.

Any person basing their thinking on this kind of source - that is, the data of theology and law - would conclude that a heretic claiming the papacy would not even be pope materialiter. That would be the logical way to think about the situation and it would be the best way to apply the hylomorphic framework and language. Guerard, on the contrary, applied the analogy in a radically different way, incompatible with the sources, and therefore employed the hylomorphic system and language to produce the conclusion that such a man would be pope materialiter. That is, materially but not formally pope.

Taking this further, we could say that:
(a) any man in whom the basic conditions of the material cause are met (i.e. he is adult, sane, Catholic, male) is matter remotely disposed to receive the form of the papacy.
(b) any man who is papabile (i.e. eligible for election and with some likelihood of election) is matter somewhat proximately disposed to receive the form of the papacy.
(c) a man who has actually been elected and is proper matter, prior to acceptance, would be matter proximately disposed to receive the form.

How then would we think of a heretic who had received the necessary votes of the cardinals? Since he is not proper matter, he is less proximately disposed to receive the form of the papacy than those in any category above, including category (a). He is further from the papacy than anybody who meets the definition of proper matter for this office. He would therefore be less appropriately referred to as "materially pope" than, say, Bishop Sanborn.

I hope this sheds some light on the subject.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:43 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Sigh...as I have said before, how anyone could accept the Des Lauriers thesis is simply beyond me. How can a single office be split? It sounds positively schizophrenic to me. :(

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:29 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
Dear friends,
I thank you for your participation in this debate. I thank all those who have written. I have not read yet all your comments. I will try to do it. Sorry, but my English is not very good.
I do not understand everything at once and I always doubt not understand all what you write.
I dwell on a point that I feel is important and that has been touched many times. I quote your words and your requests:


Mike wrote:
The Church provides us a mechanism for electing a pope. Even after this length of time, the Hierarchy lives on, the numbers are diminished, but as long as one lawfully sent bishop lives, then the Hierarchy continues. With that one (hopefully more) bishop and the remaining members of the Roman Clergy, a lawful election can be held. This is the teaching of the Church, and we are on solid ground of Tradition and supported by approved texts.


John Lane wrote:
Further, even supposing the absence of any cardinals, the theologians give several alternative ways in which a pope can be elected, including the election devolving upon the Roman clergy generally, or upon all the bishops of the world in an imperfect general council. These means have not been addressed by the Guerardians either. The importance of this cannot be over-emphasised, because it illustrates the utter invalidity of their approach. It's really just a form of contempt for the Tradition of the Church.


John Lane wrote:
I would like to see this material, if possible. For now, let it suffice to point out that anyone who receives first tonsure in the diocese of Rome is a member of the Roman Clergy, so if the Cardinals are unavailable or do not exist due to heresy, what is to stop the junior clergy who have the faith from acting to elect a pope?



I recomend you to read an important work of Fr. Ricossa on the issue, published in Sodalitium n. 55, and entitled “L’elezione del Papa” (The election of the Pope). It is fundamental in order we may understand us. Here you can download the magazine (La Rivista): Sodalitium 55 (in italian) p. 18: http://www.sodalitium.it/. I do not know how many of you understand the Italian. Unfortunately I do not have the article in English. Maybe somewhere you can find it in French. Cordially


Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:01 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Dear Gabriele,

This is an interesting article. I'm not through it yet, my school Italian is very poor and Google translation is nearly as bad!

However, this is at the heart of our difference:

Quote:
In fact, according to the strictly sedevacantist thesis, it is not foreseeable how bishops with ordinary jurisdiction can and will elect a Pope, for all residential bishops (and other prelates who would have jurisdiction) have been invalidly appointed by the antipopes or are otherwise formally heretical and outside the Church - by adhering to the errors Vatican II - or are in any case communion with Pope John Paul II, head of the new "conciliar Church." The hierarchical Church in short, would be totally gone, not only formally, but also in power and materially.


What is lacking in all of the texts I've seen, by sedevacantists or Guerardians, are the proofs of these claims.

1. Antipopes cannot appoint bishops validly by supplied jurisdiction.
2. All of the Ordinaries are heretics.
3. Recognition of JPII or Benedict XVI puts one out of the Church.

I'm not necessarily disputing all of these points, however I don't think we can assume them. They must be proved. Especially this is so when the consequence of believing them is so serious!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:06 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Gabriele, also take a look at what Bellarmine says here: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/bellarm2.html

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:16 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
John Lane wrote:
Dear Gabriele,

This is an interesting article. I'm not through it yet, my school Italian is very poor and Google translation is nearly as bad!

However, this is at the heart of our difference:

Quote:
In fact, according to the strictly sedevacantist thesis, it is not foreseeable how bishops with ordinary jurisdiction can and will elect a Pope, for all residential bishops (and other prelates who would have jurisdiction) have been invalidly appointed by the antipopes or are otherwise formally heretical and outside the Church - by adhering to the errors Vatican II - or are in any case communion with Pope John Paul II, head of the new "conciliar Church." The hierarchical Church in short, would be totally gone, not only formally, but also in power and materially.


What is lacking in all of the texts I've seen, by sedevacantists or Guerardians, are the proofs of these claims.

1. Antipopes cannot appoint bishops validly by supplied jurisdiction.
2. All of the Ordinaries are heretics.
3. Recognition of JPII or Benedict XVI puts one out of the Church.

I'm not necessarily disputing all of these points, however I don't think we can assume them. They must be proved. Especially this is so when the consequence of believing them is so serious!




Dear John,
meanwhile, I will inform you that here you can read the article in French: http://www.sodalitium.eu/index.php?ind= ... iew&idev=1.
Secondly, these three points are three convictions of sedevcantists. Only the first is a convinction of the guerardians too, I think. Now, do you really belive that an Antipope can appoint bishops validly by supplied jurisdiction?
I will read the link about Bellarmine.
Very cordially


Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:42 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
John Lane wrote:
What is lacking in all of the texts I've seen, by sedevacantists or Guerardians, are the proofs of these claims.

1. Antipopes cannot appoint bishops validly by supplied jurisdiction.
2. All of the Ordinaries are heretics.
3. Recognition of JPII or Benedict XVI puts one out of the Church.


I would definitely NOT agree with proposition #3. There are many different cases that I can foresee in which this would definitely NOT be the case. Whether or not such an one would lose membership of the Church would depend on many factors, and in my opinion, would, first of all, have to be determined by the Judge on a case by case basis, and secondly, would most often be a simple mistake.

I would also NOT agree with proposition #2 either for many of the same reasons that I do not agree with proposition #3.

However, I see a far more certain and equally serious problem: as far as I can see, ALL of the Ordinaries appointed in recent years by the anti-papal crowd are not even bishops (this includes Ratzo), since I am completely convinced that Montini's rite of "ordination" of a bishop is completely and absolutely invalid. There are fewer and fewer "Pius XII", i.e., certainly-valid, bishops alive, and more are dying every day. (I am not counting the underground bishops who are alive in various previously-iron curtain countries as there is no way, at present, to know).

I WOULD agree with proposition #1 above, however.

Lastly, I have noticed, during this discussion that one method of gaining a true pope has not been (so far) mentioned: that is, appointment by a predecessor. Although this method has, as far as I know, been used only once in the history of the Church, and even then his choice was later ratified by an election, my understanding is that since the Pope is supreme, he can use any method necessary to ensure his successor.

Besides, God, who promised that the Church would never fail, has His OWN methods to assure the continued existence of the Chair of Peter until the end of time, and despite our discussion of this matter, I am almost certain that when the time comes, He will surprise us with a method of which we have never thought.

Despite all this, I firmly believe that the Des Lauriers thesis is fatally flawed and an exercise in rationalization. It simply does not properly address the facts.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:30 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
By the way, I have downloaded Sodalitium #55 which contains the article mentioned above. It is quite long. I will attempt to translate it from the Italian as I have time, but it will not be done "in short order".

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:45 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
I have broken out the article in question, am reformatting it in MS-Word, and as soon as I have that finished, both our oldest son (who is far better at Italian than I am) and I will dig into it.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:51 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
I have reformatted it in MS-Word, and have made a VERY rough "machine translation" of it. There are 18 pages in English. Our oldest son and I are working on it.

At this point, from what I can read of Fr. Ricossa's arguments, I am not in agreement with all of them, although he does make some good points.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:09 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Dear Gabriele,

I do not have complete certitude that non-popes can appoint to vacant episcopal sees by virtue of supplied jurisdiction. However, I do not have any reason not to believe it, except for the text of Cum ex apostolatus, and that is insufficient for several reasons. Suffice to say for now, in no case would one take one's doctrine from a single piece of legislation.

You say that the three points are convictions of (some or many) sedevacantists. I agree. But when did anybody ever prove them? I am not aware of the proofs. I think they are assumptions.

But if the Guerardians do not agree with point #2 especially, then why do they worry about the visible continuity of the Church? A fortiori, why did Guerard worry about in in the 1970s?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:20 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Correction - Jim Larrabee received only the minor orders, stopping short of the sub-diaconate. I've edited the post above where I erred.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:52 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: A question about Canon 175 (and 183 and 160)
John Lane wrote:
J. Larrabee: I agree, but I don't think these men can be described as compromisers - far from it. They have been as intransigent as anyone in the traditional "movement," perhaps more so. It seems to me it is entirely an intellectual problem, stemming from the inexplicable (to me) respect for Cajetan, and the resulting ignorance of sounder theological currents, among even the best Dominicans. It is a weakness of the ecclesiology of the 20th century resulting from failing to follow in the footsteps of the outstanding Roman theologians of the 19th century, particularly Franzelin. Even Garrigou-Lagrange had some markedly liberal opinions.


Although I agree what he says about the Guerardians following Cajetan (who was not a good ecclesiologist, IMO) and I`d say "particularly Billot" :mrgreen: , yet my concern here is about the last sentence on G. Lagrange... do you know John what are those "markedly liberal opinions"???

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:23 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
John Lane wrote:
Dear Gabriele,

I do not have complete certitude that non-popes can appoint to vacant episcopal sees by virtue of supplied jurisdiction. However, I do not have any reason not to believe it, except for the text of Cum ex apostolatus, and that is insufficient for several reasons. Suffice to say for now, in no case would one take one's doctrine from a single piece of legislation.


Dear John,
The reason why you should not believe it is that an Antipope is only an usurper, who by definition can not have any jurisdiction.


Quote:
You say that the three points are convictions of (some or many) sedevacantists. I agree. But when did anybody ever prove them? I am not aware of the proofs. I think they are assumptions.


When did anybody ever prove them (point 2 and point 3)? I do not know, you must to ask it to them.

Quote:
But if the Guerardians do not agree with point #2 especially, then why do they worry about the visible continuity of the Church? A fortiori, why did Guerard worry about in in the 1970s?


Because, although they (the Ordinaries) are not formally heretics, they are still in communion with a "pope" who do not profess the Catholic faith in full.


Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:42 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Dear John,
my dear friend has asked me to send you this:

_________

Augustine Triumphus of Ancona (1243-1328), Doctor catholicus, was an outstanding Augustinian mediaeval Scholastic theologian. He studied in Paris, where he listened to Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Bonaventure. His masterpiece was his Summa de potestate ecclesiastica. It has been called “chest full of all doctrines”, as it collects in a very complete and complex manner patristical and canonical testimonials. He discerns all that could be told in a Catholic manner about papal power, his style is most dignified, his deductions are full of faith and he dealt with numerous subtle and singular questions as no doctor had done. Pope Gregory XIII granted the Roman edition of 1584. Augustine Triumphus wrote many other magnificent works.

http://peenef2.republika.pl/angielski/h ... ncona.html

In his Summa, he says:

* An elected pope can name two things: either office and authority—and this is something formal in the Pope—or the determination of such person, for instance, Peter or James—and this is something material in the Pope. (Part I, Question 3, Article 7, Corpus, fragment)

* The College [of cardinals] gives Papacy to the elect with respect to that which is material, namely as to the determination of the person; not, however, with respect to that which is formal, that is, as to authority and dignity, according to which mode Papacy comes from Christ, and not from the College. (Part I, Question 3, Article 7, ad 4)


Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:45 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Gabriele wrote:
The reason why you should not believe it is that an Antipope is only an usurper, who by definition can not have any jurisdiction.


That he may possess habitual jurisdiction, I agree with you. That he may exercise supplied jurisdiction, I disagree with you. Even a Greek schismatic whose ancestors haven't been in the unity of the Church for a thousand years can validly absolve in danger of death. He cannot possess jurisdiction, but he can exercise it for a specific act, when it is supplied for that act by the Church (c. 209).


Quote:
Because, although they (the Ordinaries) are not formally heretics, they are still in communion with a "pope" who do not profess the Catholic faith in full.


Vague, I'm sorry. Can you please lay out the principles and argument(s) involved?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Oct 01, 2011 12:15 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Gabriele wrote:
Dear John,
my dear friend has asked me to send you this:

_________

Augustine Triumphus of Ancona ...

In his Summa, he says:

* An elected pope can name two things: either office and authority—and this is something formal in the Pope—or the determination of such person, for instance, Peter or James—and this is something material in the Pope. (Part I, Question 3, Article 7, Corpus, fragment)

* The College [of cardinals] gives Papacy to the elect with respect to that which is material, namely as to the determination of the person; not, however, with respect to that which is formal, that is, as to authority and dignity, according to which mode Papacy comes from Christ, and not from the College. (Part I, Question 3, Article 7, ad 4)


Thank your friend for this please.

1. When we have to exhume men that nobody has heard of for five hundred years, we should ask ourselves why. :)

2. I have no problem with the matter/form analogy applied to the papacy, as I made clear (I thought!) above. It is the particular application of Guerard that I can't accept, for the reasons outlined already.

3. The second of the two quotes from Augustine Obscurus of Ancona is fine - but it doesn't support Guerard's theory in the manner it needs support, unfortunately.

4. The first quote is unclear. Do you have the Latin please?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Oct 01, 2011 12:22 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
John Lane wrote:
That he may possess habitual jurisdiction, I agree with you. That he may exercise supplied jurisdiction, I disagree with you. Even a Greek schismatic whose ancestors haven't been in the unity of the Church for a thousand years can validly absolve in danger of death. He cannot possess jurisdiction, but he can exercise it for a specific act, when it is supplied for that act by the Church (c. 209).


I doubt very much that your conclusion is correct. If an Antipope can appoint to vacant episcopal sees, why can not you do it thyself?


Quote:
Vague, I'm sorry. Can you please lay out the principles and argument(s) involved?

An “episcopate” which does not profess fully the Catholic Faith obviously it poses a problem of indefectibility of the Church and, consequently, of visible continuity of the Church. Where is the Church teaching (I do not know if the expression is right in English, in Italian we say “Chiesa docente”), if no one actually professes the Catholic Faith?


Sat Oct 01, 2011 1:48 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
John Lane wrote:
Thank your friend for this please.


Thank you John, I will do it.

Quote:
1. When we have to exhume men that nobody has heard of for five hundred years, we should ask ourselves why. :)


Sincerely, dear John, it seems to me an argument a little weak to eliminate the competence and the consideration for a catholic author approved by a Pope. :)

Quote:
4. The first quote is unclear. Do you have the Latin please?


I ask my friend.


Sat Oct 01, 2011 1:51 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
To John Lane from my friend:

______


A précis.
We can say in four modes that Papacy comes singularly from God.
Firstly, causally and effectively. Because even though every power comes universally from God, God granted papal power singularly to Peter.
Secondly materially and subjectively. Because although all power rests upon the divine power as a foundation, however the papal power is founded upon Christ.
Thirdly formally and quidditatively. Because even though every power consists in a certain order of the superior to the inferior, however the Church power is singularly ordained by God.
Fourthly finally and gubernatively. God, by a general providence, takes care of all creatures, but he has a singular care of his Church.
Notwithstanding the previous considerations by which it is shown that Papacy comes singularly from God, we can prove that the Pope from himself can renounce Papacy, with the following reason. That which comes from God [N.B: not the unempowered material designation, which remains and is yet to be taken away by the Church!] through the cooperation of man in effective, foundative, ordinative and gubernative way, can be taken away [N.B.: or refused in the first place] in these four ways. This is evident in natural, moral, and artificial things.
Augustine Triumphus, Summa, Part I, Q 4, A 3.


Sat Oct 01, 2011 1:51 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
To Ken Gordon from my friend:
_________
Ken Gordon wrote:
D has no bearing whatever on A. D is not only not a COMPLETE cause of A, but is NO cause of A. A comes from God alone. The Church, of course, may designate to whom God's authority can be given (....whom you bind on earth, is bound also in heaven...). But the designation and the authority do not ORIGINATE from the same source. The Church is NOT God.


D is the material cause (although not the "origin") of A. And no one is saying that authority is originated from the same source as designation

Ken Gordon wrote:
C, at least the "consent" part of it, IS a necessary cause of D IN SOME CASES, since Canon Law makes this requirement quite clear. See Canon 188 paragraph 2, for starters.

The canon says. "2º Intra tempus utile iure statutum vel, deficiente iure, ab Ordinario determinatum, de officio provisus illud adire neglexerit". There is no sign that the consent to the Good of the Church be a necessary cause of designation (we are not speaking of consent to the designation itself, which is another level of consent)

Ken Gordon wrote:
D (complemented by C) is NOT a partial cause of A, since D has nothing whatever to do with A, therefore C can have nothing whatever to do with A.

Elsewhere Totalist Sedevacantists say the exact opposite, and not only find a relation between D and A, but identify them, anc call fall from authority fall from designation


Ken Gordon wrote:
D is only an indication that A has been given in a certain case to a certain person IFF (IF and ONLY IF) the necessary requirements have been met, and remains only if those continue to be met.


Wrong again. D cannot be an indication of A, since D is a requisite for A, and matter (which is in itself unintelligible and receives being) cannot shed light on form (which is intelligible and gives being)


Sat Oct 01, 2011 1:56 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
All right. I see I must begin again in order to make clear what I find particularly disturbing about your "friend's" method of argument and his conclusions.

At this particular moment, however, due to serious family issues which must take precedence, I cannot so indulge myself.

But, I will tell you the following: first of all, I have never seen his method of argument used in discussions of philosophy, metaphysics, or theology. In my experience, the method of argument he is using was taught to me and used primarily with mathematics (first in Geometry, then in Set Theory), somewhat less so with psychology (where I thought it was misapplied), and even less so with physics and chemistry. However, my experience is undoubtedly much less than yours, despite my almost 70 years of life. Furthermore, I have no formal training in theology or doctrine.

Nonetheless, I am reasonably certain that I can prove that your "friend's" arguments are flawed, primarily because his very first postulate (or does he consider that an axiom?) is, in my opinion, wrong.

Postulate: noun: a statement the truth of which is assumed for the purposes of discussion, which may or may not be proven to be true subsequently.

Axiom: noun: a statement, the truth of which has been previously proven.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:01 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
For the information of those who care, my son and I have a little over 3/4 of the article by Fr. Ricossa in Sodalitium #55 translated into English.

As soon as we have it finished (it is about 18 pages long) we will post it to our website where those who want to read it may download it as either an MS-Word file or as a .PDF. It will be too large to post in this forum.

Perhaps John will find a place for it on his website after he has read it....then again, maybe not. :wink:

In this article, Fr. Ricossa mentions Cajetan at some length...

There are also copious footnotes, which will also be translated for your perusal.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sun Oct 02, 2011 5:05 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
1. When we have to exhume men that nobody has heard of for five hundred years, we should ask ourselves why. :)


Sincerely, dear John, it seems to me an argument a little weak to eliminate the competence and the consideration for a catholic author approved by a Pope. :)


It isn't so much an argument as a retort designed to provoke thought. :)

It was actually intended to get you to think about the fact that you can't find anything else, especially from the weighty authors. St. Thomas applies the formal/material framework by analogy all the time. So does everybody else in the scholastic tradition. The Church herself adopts this methodology in relation to faith and the Holy Eucharist, to name two doctrinal areas off the top of my head. Yet in relation to the papacy we have to rely on one theologian, of minuscule weight?

In any case, the exception proves the rule. I say Guerard dreamed up his ideas, he didn't learn them from the theologians. Ask yourself this - do you think he learned his theology from Augustine of Ancona?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Oct 02, 2011 1:06 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
John Lane wrote:
It isn't so much an argument as a retort designed to provoke thought. :)

It was actually intended to get you to think about the fact that you can't find anything else, especially from the weighty authors. St. Thomas applies the formal/material framework by analogy all the time. So does everybody else in the scholastic tradition. The Church herself adopts this methodology in relation to faith and the Holy Eucharist, to name two doctrinal areas off the top of my head. Yet in relation to the papacy we have to rely on one theologian, of minuscule weight?


Dear John, I belive that every Catholic who reads a theologian approved by the Pope is enough safe, peaceful, satisfied and without the worry of not reading a “theologian of weight”… Then remember what we said The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis: ”Do not want to know who said it but pose the mind to what is said”.
However, I am convinced that readers have sufficient elements to understand the value of the testimony of this theologian.

John Lane wrote:
In any case, the exception proves the rule. I say Guerard dreamed up his ideas, he didn't learn them from the theologians. Ask yourself this - do you think he learned his theology from Augustine of Ancona?


No, of course. And, just for this reason, it is important what he says this theologian. He confirms that the intuition of Fr. Guérard is right. Regarding Fr. Guérard, he was considered a genius and a great theologian by all, friends and enemies (this, of course, does not give us the certainty that his Thesis is immune from error).


Returning, instead, to the substance of things I would like to know what you think of the issue that we touched on earlier. I quote our exchange:

John Lane wrote:
That he may possess habitual jurisdiction, I agree with you. That he may exercise supplied jurisdiction, I disagree with you. Even a Greek schismatic whose ancestors haven't been in the unity of the Church for a thousand years can validly absolve in danger of death. He cannot possess jurisdiction, but he can exercise it for a specific act, when it is supplied for that act by the Church (c. 209).


Gabriele wrote:
I doubt very much that your conclusion is correct. If an Antipope can appoint to vacant episcopal sees, why can not you do it thyself?


Could you respond to this question? I think that is important.
Thank you very much, dear John. Very cordially


Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:21 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Gabriele wrote:
To John Lane from my friend:

______


A précis.
We can say in four modes that Papacy comes singularly from God.
Firstly, causally and effectively. Because even though every power comes universally from God, God granted papal power singularly to Peter.
Secondly materially and subjectively. Because although all power rests upon the divine power as a foundation, however the papal power is founded upon Christ.
Thirdly formally and quidditatively. Because even though every power consists in a certain order of the superior to the inferior, however the Church power is singularly ordained by God.
Fourthly finally and gubernatively. God, by a general providence, takes care of all creatures, but he has a singular care of his Church.
Notwithstanding the previous considerations by which it is shown that Papacy comes singularly from God, we can prove that the Pope from himself can renounce Papacy, with the following reason. That which comes from God [N.B: not the unempowered material designation, which remains and is yet to be taken away by the Church!] through the cooperation of man in effective, foundative, ordinative and gubernative way, can be taken away [N.B.: or refused in the first place] in these four ways. This is evident in natural, moral, and artificial things.
Augustine Triumphus, Summa, Part I, Q 4, A 3.


That's good, thanks Gabriele.

In this analysis of the four causes, the theologian finds the material cause in the human nature of Christ, it seems to me. This seems to me to be perfectly orthodox. I can't see that it supports the Guerardian position one iota. Am I misunderstanding it?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:33 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Gabriele wrote:
Returning, instead, to the substance of things I would like to know what you think of the issue that we touched on earlier. I quote our exchange:

John Lane wrote:
That he may possess habitual jurisdiction, I agree with you. That he may exercise supplied jurisdiction, I disagree with you. Even a Greek schismatic whose ancestors haven't been in the unity of the Church for a thousand years can validly absolve in danger of death. He cannot possess jurisdiction, but he can exercise it for a specific act, when it is supplied for that act by the Church (c. 209).


Gabriele wrote:
I doubt very much that your conclusion is correct.


If that is truly the case, then you do not understand what John is trying to tell you. His statement is completely orthodox and can be supported by Canon Law and the general teaching of the Church.

Gabriele wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
If an Antipope can appoint to vacant episcopal sees, why can not you do it thyself?


Could you respond to this question? I think that is important.


I will jump in here if I may: Let me ask you this, Gabriele: do you understand the term "supplied jurisdiction"? Do you understand why it can be used, i.e., do you understand its purpose? Do you understand WHEN it can be used? Do you understand BY WHOM it can be used?

To answer your question, "...why can you not do it thyself?". The answer is quite simple: because John is not a cleric: i.e., he is neither a priest, nor a bishop, nor, in fact, a "religious" of any kind, as far as I know. In order for a person, any person, to USE the jurisdiction that is supplied by the Church, that person MUST be ordained, and not to just any "office" in the Church, but one which would ordinarily bring with it, or be able to have applied to it, acts requiring jurisdiction, such as hearing confessions.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Last edited by Ken Gordon on Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:51 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Gabriele wrote:
Dear John, I belive that every Catholic who reads a theologian approved by the Pope is enough safe, peaceful, satisfied and without the worry of not reading a “theologian of weight”… Then remember what we said The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis: ”Do not want to know who said it but pose the mind to what is said”.
However, I am convinced that readers have sufficient elements to understand the value of the testimony of this theologian.


This is all by the by, of course, as I have already pointed out that this theologian doesn't assist your cause. But I don't want to permit the idea to flourish here that if anybody does find a single obscure theologian in support of some unusual theory that it has been proved. Proof of a theological conclusion or theory depends upon its necessary logical connection with the deposit of faith; the deposit of faith is a question of authority. The strength of the logic is testified to by authority also, very often. In the case of papal authority, that strength is an infallible assurance; in the case of the testimony of theologians, it rests on their relative weight and number.

If you do not agree that the relative weight and number of theologians testifying to a given truth is important, please say so. This is important. Edit: I suggest that you recall the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic probability. The intrinsic probability of any thesis consists of its logical connection to the deposit of faith; the extrinsic, to the weight and number of those who hold it. The way that you use the quote from a Kempis appears to be nothing more than a denial of the reality and importance of extrinsic probability, a serious error.

In arguing this way you are proving my point regarding Guerardianism and the order of fact in theology.

Quote:
He confirms that the intuition of Fr. Guérard is right.

I don't see that he does. Perhaps you could explain that.

Quote:
Regarding Fr. Guérard, he was considered a genius and a great theologian by all, friends and enemies


This is a problem of perspective. I know he was brilliant. I don't think even the most passionate Guerardian would suggest he was in the same class as Billot, for example. What did he write? The only reference I have ever seen to him in published writing is this, from Fenton: "Sometimes, it must be admitted, the arguments adduced against the validity of a notion of a fides ecciesiastica really distinct from the fides divina leave something to be desired. Such is the case, I am convinced, with the arguments advanced in this direction by Fr. Guérard des Lauriers in his recent work Dimensions de la foi."

Hardly high praise!

Gabriele wrote:
I doubt very much that your conclusion is correct. If an Antipope can appoint to vacant episcopal sees, why can not you do it thyself?

Could you respond to this question? I think that is important.
Thank you very much, dear John. Very cordially


Paul VI, for example, was elected by the cardinals and accepted by almost all Catholics as pope. In fact, he was probably accepted by all Catholics as pope but not "peacefully." These circumstances constituted common error. The Church then would supply jurisdiction for acts which were for the good of souls. A correspondent recently described those circumstances as creating for Paul VI what used to be called prior to the Code a coloured title. I'm not sure whether that is relevant but it seems correct.

I am not firm in this view, but I think it has merit. It seems perfectly classical to me. What I suggest is that if it is erroneous we see some proof. I can certainly cite the various canons and commentaries to support it if required, but I think nobody who has studied these matters would need that. It's basic stuff.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:58 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Works of Guerard des Lauriers (a mathematician as well as a theologian, which gives an insight into his approach to theology and philosophy - his penchant for pure abstraction):

Sur les systèmes différentiels du second ordre qui admettent un groupe continu fini de transformations... (Thèse présentée à la Faculté des sciences de Paris pour obtenir le grade de docteur des sciences mathématiques, Paris, 1941); Le Saint-Esprit, âme de l'Eglise (Etiolles, Seine-et-Oise, 1948); Dimensions de la foi, 2 vol., Paris, 1952; La démarche du P. Teilhard de Chardin, réflexions d'ordre épistemologique, Divinitas, n°3 (1959), pp. 221-268; La communion intelligible dans la vérité entre l'Eglise enseignant et l'Eglise enseignée, Divinitas, n°8 (1964), pp. 97-130; Mater Ecclesiae, Divinitas, n°8 (1964), pp. 350-416; Le Péché et la durée de l'ange (Collectio philosophica Lateranensis, 10, Rome,1965); Réflexions sur l’Annonciation envisagée au point de vue théologique, Divinitas, n°9 (1965), pp. 483-510; La preuve de Dieu et les cinq voies, Divinitas, n°10 (1966), pp. 5-229; La doctrine théologique du R. P. Rahner, La pensée catholique, n°117 (1968), pp. 78-93; Maria, Mère de l'Eglise, Studi e ricerche di scienze religiose in onore dei Santi Apostoli Pietro e Paolo nel XIX. centenario del loro martirio (Roma 1968), pp. 7-19; Le mystère du salut, Divinitas, n°12 (1968), pp. 375-474; Risposta alla Lettera ad un religioso (à S. Weil), Turin, 1970; La Mathématique, les mathématiques, la mathématique moderne (Paris 1972), publié aussi dans Itinéraires, n°156 (1971). Egalement plusieurs publications dans les Cahiers de Cassiciacum (Association Saint-Herménégilde), n°1 (1979) ; n°6 (1981); L'offertoire de la Messe et le Nouvel Ordo Missae, Itinéraires, n°158, pp. 29-69; Christus novum instituit Pascha se ipsum ab ecclesiis per sacerdotes sub signis visibilibus immolandum, Einsicht, n°10 (1980), pp. 93-98; La Charité de la vérité (Villegenon, Ed. Sainte-Jeanne-d’Arc, 1985); La Présence réelle du Verbe incarné dans les espèces consacrées (Villegenon, 1987).

Sa bibliographie (jusqu’en 1968) a été publiée dans Divinitas, n°12 (1968), pp. I-VI.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:14 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Well, although my French is not very good, from what I can make out from that, I am not impressed.

Doctor of Mathematics

de Chardin.

Gee...

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:47 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Ken, I think he was answering de Chardin. :)

Don't be too harsh. He was a very good man and a very brilliant man. I only wish to understand him and to put him in context. We all tend to lionize those who are close to us. Time creates a better perspective.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 03, 2011 4:46 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
John Lane wrote:
Ken, I think he was answering de Chardin. :)


Yes. I understood that. And there is his document entitled, "The Theologic Doctrine of R. P. Rahner"

John Lane wrote:
Don't be too harsh. He was a very good man and a very brilliant man. I only wish to understand him and to put him in context. We all tend to lionize those who are close to us. Time creates a better perspective.


Yes.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:22 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Dear Gabriele,

Could I ask you to refer your friend to this post? viewtopic.php?p=9734#p9734

Neither you nor he has responded to it. Even if you don't find it convincing, you will at least see that I have a cogent alternative form/matter analogy in relation to the papacy, one which I think more consistent with the authorities, especially Bellarmine and the Fathers (who are unanimous, according to Bellarmine).

It is my view, by the way, that the truth that manifest heretics are not members of the Church is definable. I also believe that the truth that non-members of the Church cannot possess habitual jurisdiction is definable. Further, I believe that the conclusion, manifest heretics cannot possess habitual jurisdiction, is also definable. I believe these truths to be definable because St. Robert Bellarmine says that they rest upon divine law and that the Fathers are unanimous in teaching them as arising from divine law. That makes them potential dogmas. Indeed, if there had been no controversy over them they would already be dogmas by virtue of the ordinary, universal, magisterium. Their status appears to me to be precisely that of the Immaculate Conception in 1853, prior to the definition of Pius IX.

If you consider that comparison for a moment you will see that it is a noble and urgent necessity to insist upon these truths at every opportunity and to endeavour to disprove all incompatible notions. Cajetan's ideas on these points are in fact errors against divine revelation, just as the interpretation of St. Thomas by many Dominicans in relation to the Immaculate Conception were errors against divine revelation.

One thing I would like to achieve from this discussion is to convince people to go back to the books and absorb the best Roman tradition, found for example in Franzelin and Billot, who were both followers of Bellarmine, against the novelties and confusion of men like Bouix (a saintly and expert canonist, by the way, and anti-Gallican).

In case this is misunderstood, I note that Guerard's thesis may well not contradict these truths, and in fact it is my view at this stage that it doesn't. But it is incompatible with them in that it bypasses them, ignoring their importance. More critically, however, the main conclusion of his thesis and its raison d'etre, that a material pope maintains the apostolic succession, is gravely erroneous and when stated in the form it was stated above ("The Catholic Church in its formal apostolicity has ceased to be a visible institution...") is heretical. It contradicts another truth, the dogma that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church succeeds to the Apostles in an unbroken line. This we profess in the Nicene Creed, and this the Holy Office under Pope Pius IX reminded us is a matter of Faith (see Denz. 1686).

I hasten to add that I am aware that there is a variety of Guerardians with their different versions of the Thesis, some of whom wholeheartedly embrace the truths I am here highlighting and would not suggest that the formal apostolicity of the Church has been interrupted.

Finally, it shouldn't need to be said but I acknowledge that our opponents in these matters are good men with the best intentions, just as Cajetan, Suarez, John of St. Thomas, and Bouix, were holy, brilliant, and learned men who desired only to serve the Church and the Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:16 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
John Lane wrote:
If you do not agree that the relative weight and number of theologians testifying to a given truth is important, please say so.


It is very important but that does not allow to say that what he said a remote theologian, without others have contradicted him, is necessarily negligible or insignificant. For the rest, I confirm what I already said.

John Lane wrote:
Paul VI, for example, was elected by the cardinals and accepted by almost all Catholics as pope. In fact, he was probably accepted by all Catholics as pope but not "peacefully." These circumstances constituted common error. The Church then would supply jurisdiction for acts which were for the good of souls. A correspondent recently described those circumstances as creating for Paul VI what used to be called prior to the Code a coloured title. I'm not sure whether that is relevant but it seems correct.


Yes, this is relevant , dear John. A coloured title can heal an invalid election.
I think that might be of interest what he writes Fr. Hervé Belmont (a priest who follows the Cassiciacum Thesis):

[…] « Maintenant, si l’on s’interroge sur le sens exact de materialiter, sur son contenu, il faut prendre en compte l’avancée du temps et les changements réels qu’il apporte.
Il y avait chez Paul VI un fait juridique : il était le sujet élu par les cardinaux et reconnu par eux ; cette réalité juridique s’est effilochée aux conclaves suivants puisque le nombre des vrais cardinaux n’a cessé de décroître. Pour l’élection de Benoît XVI, il n’y en avait plus. Et donc la consistance du materialiter n’est pas demeurée identique. Le materialiter qu’on peut attribuer à Benoît XVI est assez ténu : comme il ne reste rien de l’ordre juridique, il ne reste qu’un fait public (l’être-là) qui n’est qu’une disposition prochaine à être reconnu par l’Église universelle en cas de rupture avec la nouvelle religion de Vatican II. Il y a encore une continuité (qui n’est pas sans incidence sur l’apostolicité de l’Église) mais cette continuité est une continuité en puissance ».[…] (Source: http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/18/ ... ciacum.pdf).


Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:19 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 144 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.