It is currently Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:27 pm




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

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,
Could I ask you to refer your friend to this post? http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... 9734#p9734


Yes, of course, John. I will do it. I think I have neglect this post, me too. You have done well to recall it. I will read it.

John Lane wrote:
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).


The complete phrase of my friend says: “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 think, he mentions yet the distinction among matter and form, applying it to the apostolicity of the Church. The dogma for which the hierarchy of the Catholic Church succeeds to the Apostles in an unbroken line is not contradicted. Indeed, the apostolic primacy over the universal Church is owned by the Roman Pontiff. The continuity of the Church is founded on the roman primacy. We must consider carefully that the episcopate is based on the primacy and the continuity of the episcopate on that of the primacy. As remember Fr. Ricossa and Fr. Lucien citing other authors, during the vacancy of the Apostolic See is not the fallible magisterium of bishops or the government reduced and local of bishops that maintains the Church of Christ, but the fact that the Church has the power to elect the new Pope.


Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:27 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Dear Gabriele,

Gabriele wrote:
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.


All that I am saying is that your doctrine is one of reason, not one of the theology, properly speaking. This is evident in the procedure used to arrive at it and to defend it. It has no extrinsic probability, meaning it is not found in the works of theologians. Even the single minor authority you bring forth, after the fact, does not support you, as far as I can see. But I have made this latter point twice and you do not respond.

Of course, since you care not who supports a thesis, being no respecter of persons, you will not find it difficult to believe that I, an untrained layman, am right, and Guerard, a brilliant theologian, was entirely mistaken. :)


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.


Quote:
Yes, this is relevant , dear John.


This is not an argument. Do you have one, against this point? Common error is a principle of canon law, canon 209.

Quote:
A coloured title can heal an invalid election.

I don't know why you state this. Is it relevant?

Quote:
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).


This appears to me to be merely a way of repeating the unproved claims which form the entire foundation of the Guerardian position. Am I missing something?

I await your responses to the more substantive points made above, in previous posts.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:35 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Gabriele wrote:
The complete phrase of my friend says: “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 think, he mentions yet the distinction among matter and form, applying it to the apostolicity of the Church. The dogma for which the hierarchy of the Catholic Church succeeds to the Apostles in an unbroken line is not contradicted.


Every single dogma of the Church would be contradicted if treated in this way. The Church is materially infallible, but formally she has failed? The Church is materially indefectible, but formally she has ceased to be the divine-human institution established by Christ? The Church has formally ceased to be a visible unity of the faithful, but she remains materially a visible unity?

Frankly, and I mean no disrespect, this is nonsense and dangerous nonsense. It is the abuse of the distinction between matter and form, it seems to me because you forget that this is an analogous application of the distinction.

Ask yourself this - what basis have you for positing that something merely material meets the requirement that some property of the Church must exist? When did any theologian argue in this way, about any reality? The apostolicity of the Church is a reality, remember, not a theory. It is a concrete fact. To say that it persists only materially is to deny that it persists as a concrete reality. This is really heretical, there is no other way to characterise it. It empties the teaching of the Church about her own nature of any reality.

Quote:
As remember Fr. Ricossa and Fr. Lucien citing other authors, during the vacancy of the Apostolic See is not the fallible magisterium of bishops or the government reduced and local of bishops that maintains the Church of Christ, but the fact that the Church has the power to elect the new Pope.


Yes, of course, but this power in the Church is formally there. It is complete, ineradicable. The question upon which we differ is precisely how this power remains during a lengthy vacancy. I quote Bellarmine and the other theologians on how it remains. You present a novel theory.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:44 pm
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)
Gabriele wrote:
The complete phrase of my friend says: “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 think, he mentions yet the distinction among matter and form, applying it to the apostolicity of the Church. The dogma for which the hierarchy of the Catholic Church succeeds to the Apostles in an unbroken line is not contradicted. Indeed, the apostolic primacy over the universal Church is owned by the Roman Pontiff. The continuity of the Church is founded on the roman primacy. We must consider carefully that the episcopate is based on the primacy and the continuity of the episcopate on that of the primacy.


Hi Gabriele!

Any proof of this? No theologian I`m aware of explains the note of Apostolicity in this way. Could you please quote some source?

Quote:
As remember Fr. Ricossa and Fr. Lucien citing other authors, during the vacancy of the Apostolic See is not the fallible magisterium of bishops or the government reduced and local of bishops that maintains the Church of Christ, but the fact that the Church has the power to elect the new Pope.


I was aware of this but this is also completely gratuitous and against the indefectibility of the Church.

I quote Fenton http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/ ... recnum=608

Quote:
As a consequence of this inseparable union of the primacy with the episcopate of Rome, scholastic theology points to the common Catholic teaching that the local Church of Rome, the faithful of the Eternal City presided over by their Bishop who is surrounded by his own priests and other clerics, as an infallible and indefectible institution. If, until the end of time, the man who is charged with the responsibility of presiding over the universal Church militant as Christ's vicar on earth is necessarily the head of the local Church in Rome, then it follows quite obviously that the local Church of the Eternal City must be destined by God to continue to live as long as the Church militant itself. A man could not be Bishop of Rome unless there were a definite Roman Church over which he could rule by divine authority.

Another highly important and sometimes overlooked prerogative of the local Roman Church is its infallibility. By reason of its peculiar place in the universal Church militant, this individual congregation has always been and will always be protected from corporate heresy by God's providential power. The local Church of Rome, with its bishop, its presbyterium, its clergy and its laity will exist until the end of time secure in the purity of its faith. St. Cyprian alluded to this charism when he spoke of the Catholic Romans as those "ad quos perfidia habere non potest accessum."

This infallibility, not only of the Roman Pontiff, but also of the local Church of Rome, was a central theme in the ecclesiology of some of the greatest Counter-Reformation theologians. Cardinal Hosius proposed this thesis in his polemic against Brentius.[33] John Driedo developed it magnificently.[34] St. Robert explained this teaching by saying that the Roman clergy and the Roman laity, as a corporate unit, could never fall away from the faith.[35] The Roman Church, as an individual local institution, can never fall away from the faith. Manifestly the same guarantee is given to no other local Church.

It is interesting to note that during the prolonged vacancy of the Roman See the presbyters and the deacons of Rome wrote to St. Cyprian in such a way as to manifest their conviction that the faith of their own local Church, even during this interregnum, constituted a norm to which the faith of other local Churches was meant to conform.[36] The Roman Church could not possibly be the one with which all the other local congregations of Christendom must agree were it not endowed with a special infallibility. In order to be effective that infallibility must be acknowledged in a very practical manner by the other local units of the Church militant throughout the world.

Actually the infallibility of the Roman Church is much more than a mere theological opinion. The proposition that "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is one of the theses of Peter de Osma, formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.[37]



In other words... during the vacancy of the See, the presbyterium of the local Church of Rome (the diocese of Rome) said it was the rule to which all other local churches must adhere to, and Saint Cyprian agreed with it.

Ther is also a clear teaching of Dom A. Grea on this subject but I believe this is enough?

Besides if the Church may err in matters of faith and moral during the interregnum, how do you know it didn`t happen already? And lastly how do you explain the promise of Our Lord: "ecce Ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad conusmmationem saeculi? (note also the plural vobiscum!)

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:01 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)
What speed, John! I am a little slow, I know.

John Lane wrote:
Dear Gabriele,

Gabriele wrote:
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.


All that I am saying is that your doctrine is one of reason, not one of the theology, properly speaking. This is evident in the procedure used to arrive at it and to defend it. It has no extrinsic probability, meaning it is not found in the works of theologians. Even the single minor authority you bring forth, after the fact, does not support you, as far as I can see. But I have made this latter point twice and you do not respond.


I am agree, John.

John Lane wrote:
Of course, since you care not who supports a thesis, being no respecter of persons, you will not find it difficult to believe that I, an untrained layman, am right, and Guerard, a brilliant theologian, was entirely mistaken. :)


Of course, John. This can happen (but I do not think it happened :D ).

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.


Quote:
Yes, this is relevant , dear John.

This is not an argument. Do you have one, against this point? Common error is a principle of canon law, canon 209.

A coloured title can heal an invalid election.
I don't know why you state this. Is it relevant?


I think I have misunderstood the meaning of the word "relevant". I used this word believing it had another meaning (i.e. considerable, I think!). Oh, my English... Sorry!

Quote:
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).

This appears to me to be merely a way of repeating the unproved claims which form the entire foundation of the Guerardian position. Am I missing something?

I await your responses to the more substantive points made above, in previous posts.


Ok John.


Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:08 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Dear Gabriele,

Quote:
Of course, John. This can happen (but I do not think it happened :D ).


Of course. You need to say, in a thick Italian accent, "is possible, ma no probable." :)

Quote:
I think I have misunderstood the meaning of the word "relevant". I used this word believing it had another meaning (i.e. considerable, I think!). Oh, my English... Sorry!


Better than my Italian! :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:38 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:
Every single dogma of the Church would be contradicted if treated in this way. The Church is materially infallible, but formally she has failed? The Church is materially indefectible, but formally she has ceased to be the divine-human institution established by Christ? The Church has formally ceased to be a visible unity of the faithful, but she remains materially a visible unity?

Frankly, and I mean no disrespect, this is nonsense and dangerous nonsense. It is the abuse of the distinction between matter and form, it seems to me because you forget that this is an analogous application of the distinction.

Ask yourself this - what basis have you for positing that something merely material meets the requirement that some property of the Church must exist? When did any theologian argue in this way, about any reality? The apostolicity of the Church is a reality, remember, not a theory. It is a concrete fact. To say that it persists only materially is to deny that it persists as a concrete reality. This is really heretical, there is no other way to characterise it. It empties the teaching of the Church about her own nature of any reality.


Dear John, this is your conclusion. Unfortunately (or fortunately) wrong. When ever any theologian has argued contrariwise to the fact that the apostolicity can subsist only materially?
You say: "The apostolicity of the Church is a reality, remember, not a theory. It is a concrete fact. To say that it persists only materially is to deny that it persists as a concrete reality. This is really heretical". I give you an example. During an ordinary period of vacancy of the Apostolic See there is not in act (concretely, as you say) a power of universal jurisdiction or a power of infallible magisterium (which constitute an essential part of the Papacy and an essential element for the persistence of the Church). These powers exist only potentially. This means that the Papacy or the Church has failed? Or that the Papacy or the Church is less real or concrete? No, of course.
I quote what he says a theologian, Fr. Zapelena s.j., of the Gregorian University of Rome, speaking on the continuity of the Primacy of Peter: “Si tratta di una successione che deve durare continuamente fino alla fine dei secoli. È sufficiente, evidentemente, una continuità morale, che non è interrotta durante il tempo in cui viene eletto il nuovo successore”. (T. ZAPELENA S.J., De Ecclesia Christi, pars apologetica, Roma, Università Gregoriana, 1955).

John Lane wrote:
Yes, of course, but this power in the Church is formally there. It is complete, ineradicable.


The fact that this power is usually complete does not mean that in an extraordinary situation can not be simply potential, possible.

John Lane wrote:
The question upon which we differ is precisely how this power remains during a lengthy vacancy. I quote Bellarmine and the other theologians on how it remains. You present a novel theory.


Exactly.


Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:45 pm
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)
Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Every single dogma of the Church would be contradicted if treated in this way. The Church is materially infallible, but formally she has failed? The Church is materially indefectible, but formally she has ceased to be the divine-human institution established by Christ? The Church has formally ceased to be a visible unity of the faithful, but she remains materially a visible unity?

Frankly, and I mean no disrespect, this is nonsense and dangerous nonsense. It is the abuse of the distinction between matter and form, it seems to me because you forget that this is an analogous application of the distinction.

Ask yourself this - what basis have you for positing that something merely material meets the requirement that some property of the Church must exist? When did any theologian argue in this way, about any reality? The apostolicity of the Church is a reality, remember, not a theory. It is a concrete fact. To say that it persists only materially is to deny that it persists as a concrete reality. This is really heretical, there is no other way to characterise it. It empties the teaching of the Church about her own nature of any reality.


Dear John, this is your conclusion. Unfortunately (or fortunately) wrong. When ever any theologian has argued contrariwise to the fact that the apostolicity can subsist only materially?
You say: "The apostolicity of the Church is a reality, remember, not a theory. It is a concrete fact. To say that it persists only materially is to deny that it persists as a concrete reality. This is really heretical". I give you an example. During an ordinary period of vacancy of the Apostolic See there is not in act (concretely, as you say) a power of universal jurisdiction or a power of infallible magisterium (which constitute an essential part of the Papacy and an essential element for the persistence of the Church). These powers exist only potentially. This means that the Papacy or the Church has failed? Or that the Papacy or the Church is less real or concrete? No, of course.
I quote what he says a theologian, Fr. Zapelena s.j., of the Gregorian University of Rome, speaking on the continuity of the Primacy of Peter: “Si tratta di una successione che deve durare continuamente fino alla fine dei secoli. È sufficiente, evidentemente, una continuità morale, che non è interrotta durante il tempo in cui viene eletto il nuovo successore”. (T. ZAPELENA S.J., De Ecclesia Christi, pars apologetica, Roma, Università Gregoriana, 1955).



Gabriele you (and those who support des Lauriers) are confusing the continuity of the See of Peter with Apostolicity. Those are two different things.
If you read Latin I can pass you (or if anyone wish to translate I`d appreciate it :)) some quotes from Palmieri, Franzelin and Billot saying that Apostolicity must exist in act.

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:08 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)
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Gabriele you (and those who support des Lauriers) are confusing the continuity of the See of Peter with Apostolicity. Those are two different things.
If you read Latin I can pass you (or if anyone wish to translate I`d appreciate it :)) some quotes from Palmieri, Franzelin and Billot saying that Apostolicity must exist in act.

Cristian


Hi Cristian. Sorry if I am confusing… Maybe I am confused (even if I do not believe), but I assure you that Fr. Ricossa, Fr. Lucien, Bp. Sanborn and those who have studied the Thesis are very very little confused.
- About the continuity of the See of Peter: so are we agree?
- About the apostolicity: thank you to pass to me these quotes. Highlights you, please, the words which prove that apostolicity must necessarily exist in act.


Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:45 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Gabriele you (and those who support des Lauriers) are confusing the continuity of the See of Peter with Apostolicity. Those are two different things.
If you read Latin I can pass you (or if anyone wish to translate I`d appreciate it :)) some quotes from Palmieri, Franzelin and Billot saying that Apostolicity must exist in act.

Cristian


Thanks Cristian. Yes, this is because the power Zapalena is discussing is in a different subject than the Apostolicity of the Church. Apostolicity is in the bishops, in the concrete. That is, it must exist in act, not merely in potentia. The continuity of the Holy See depends upon the Church retaining, radically, the right and power to provide herself with a visible head. This power is in the cardinals, usually, and devolves upon the junior Roman clergy or the bishops generally in the absence of the cardinals. This is what Bellarmine and Billot teach (and Cajetan, since you like him :wink: ) - the texts are here if anybody needs to review them: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=13&start=0

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:50 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)
Gabriele wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Gabriele you (and those who support des Lauriers) are confusing the continuity of the See of Peter with Apostolicity. Those are two different things.
If you read Latin I can pass you (or if anyone wish to translate I`d appreciate it :)) some quotes from Palmieri, Franzelin and Billot saying that Apostolicity must exist in act.

Cristian


Hi Cristian. Sorry if I am confusing… Maybe I am confused (even if I do not believe), but I assure you that Fr. Ricossa, Fr. Lucien, Bp. Sanborn and those who have studied the Thesis are very very little confused.


Caro Gabriele!

First of all if you admit the possibility that all the Bishops and faithful may err during the vacancy of the See, I guess you won´t have much problem to accept at least the possibility they may be confused, will you? :D

Let´s go little by little:

Quote:
- About the continuity of the See of Peter: so are we agree?


Well, do you agree the theologians are talking about the Primacy of Peter and not about apostolicity? :)

You quoted Fr. Ricossa quoting Zapelena (thesis IX) saying:

Quote:
“Si tratta di una successione che deve durare continuamente fino alla fine dei secoli. È sufficiente, evidentemente, una continuità morale, che non è interrotta durante il tempo in cui viene eletto il nuovo successore”

And then Zapelena continues: "During the vacancy of the Holy See, it remains in the Church the right and duty (along with the divine promise) to chose someone who legitimately succeeds the dead pope on the rights of the primacy. During all this time the constitution of the Church doesn´t change... etc"

Thesis IX reads: "From divine law Peter will have perpetual successors in the primacy until the end" (E Christi ipsius institutione Petrus habebit sucessores in primatu ad finem usque saeculorum)

Zapelena will deal on Apostolicity just on thesis XII: "The true Church of Christ is Apostolic by formal succession".

Salaverri (num. 1176) for instance defines Apostolicity: "basically it is the perennial identity of the mission in the Church that Christ gave to the Apostles when He founded her."

(second part below)

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

Leon Bloy


Thu Oct 06, 2011 2:26 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)
Gabriele wrote:
- About the apostolicity: thank you to pass to me these quotes. Highlights you, please, the words which prove that apostolicity must necessarily exist in act.


Ok here they are:


Palmieri D., Tractatus de Romano Pontifice, 1902.

Quote:
“Hinc Apostolus ad Ephes. IV, 11-12, ait quod Deus dedit quosdam quidem Apostolos... quosdam autem pastores et doctores ad consummationem Sanctorum in opus ministerii, in aedificationem corporis Christi. Ex quo patet necesse est ut actio eorum qui enumerati sunt perduret quoad consummandi sunt sancti et corpus Christi aedificandum. Dupliciter vero ipsa perdurare potest, vel quatenus eius efficacia maneat, vel quatenus continua successione semper actu existat. Iam vero patet hoc alterum quoque requiri; dicuntur enim a Deo illi dati in opus ministerii, quod actuale requirit exercitium potestatis. Porro Apostoli quatenus tales secundum totam amplitudinem potestatis perpetui esse non debebant; prophetas quoque et evangelistas, prout speciale munus significatur, perpetuos esse non debuisse satis constat; restat ergo ut pastores et doctores quatenus tales, quorum est proprium ministerium quo aedificatur corpus Christi et consummantur sancti, perpetua successione perdurent, quorum ministerium illud quoque obtinetur, ut ministerii aliorum quod transiit efficacia semper perseveret. Ex divina igitur institutione debent esse in Ecclesia post Apostolos ii qui sint pastores et doctores, qui nempe habeant potestatem regendi, docendi simulque sanctificandi.” (Poleg. Num. 17).
Fieri autem potest, ut Christus sit usque ad consummationem saeculi cum Apostolis docentibus alterutro modo: vel quatenus ipsae personae Apostolorum victurae erant usque ad finem saeculi, vel quatenus hi continuos successores erant habituri. Nam et in hac hypotesi Christus proprie locutus esset, dicens se futurum cum Apostolis usque ad finem saeculi; quod enim toti successioni quis dicere velit, recte primis affirmat spectatis ut primis, habituris perpetuos heredes. Iam vero priorem modum ipsa historia excludit; restat ergo alter. Igitur Magisterium Apostolicum in successoribus Apostolorum perpetuo durabit et Christo auxiliante munere suo feliciter fungentur discipulos faciens, docens h. e. actu se exercens”. (Num. 27).


To sum up: Palmieri says that when Our Lord said He will be with the Apostles all days until the end he could have mean two things, whether the Apostles were going to live until then or rather trough their successors who will have their same power. And he says that succession must exist continuously in act (continua successione semper actu existat)

Franzelin I., De Ecclesia 1907, Thesis XIII, pag. 222-3.

Quote:
“Ex his porro intelligitur distinctio in conditione ipsius Ecclesiae tempore sedis vacantis et tempore sedis plenae, illo scilicet priori tempore sedi Apostolicae vacanti divino iure debetur sed nondum est successor Petri, visibilis petra et visibile caput Ecclesiae; tempore sedis plenae is divino iure iam actu sedet. In considerationem potissimum venit ipsa radix totius vitae Ecclesiae, fidei inquam indefectibillitas et infallibilis custodia depositi. Certe non solum indefectibillitas in credendo (infallibilitatem passivam dicunt) sed etiam infallibilitas in praedicando veritatem revelatam et iam sufficienter pro fide catholica propositam manet in Ecclesia, etiam dum interim suo capite visibili orbata est, ut nec totum corpus Ecclesiae credendo nec totus Episcopatus docendo a fide tradita deficere et in haeresim delabi possit, quia talis permanentia Spiritus veritatis in Ecclesia, regno et sponsa et corpore Christi, comprehenditur in ipsa promissione et institutione indefectibilitatis Ecclesiar omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi. Idem quod de veritate (melius unitate) fidei contra haeresim, dicendum etiam est ex eadem ratione de unitate communionis contra schisma universale. Manet ergo lex et promissio divina perpetuae successionis in sede Petri ut radice et centro catholicae unitatis, huicque legi et promissioni respondet ex parte Ecclesiae non modo ius et officium sed etiam indefectibilitas in legitime procuranda et suscipienda successione et in servanda unitate communionis cum sede Petrina etiam vacante, intuitu successoris in ea expectandi et indefectibiliter futuri...”



Here Franzelin says that the indefectibility of the Church includes all days and prevent both the episcopacy and the faithful to fall into heresy.

Billot L, De Ecclesia Christi, 5 edición (1927), pag. 241 y s.

Quote:
“... Ecclesiam quam post se in terris relinquebat, nonnisi a collegio apostolico plantandam aperte declarabat, dum apostolis solis conferebat missionem sine qua, cum de supernaturali instituto agitur, omne tentamen frustraneum, omnis demum opera cassa atque irrita est. Sed non ad solum tempus vitae apostolorum mensura dierum huius ecclesiae restringebatur. Quippe ecclesia cum qua futurum se promittebat, quaeque ac de causa verae Christi Ecclesiae nomine insignitur, nullum in mundo nisi cum mundo ipso erat habitura finem. Et nihilominus, quantumvis tempus ab apostolorum morte cogitetur effluxisse, semper oportebit vereficari illud: ecce ego vobiscum sum, donec veniat consummatio... quid est igitur vobiscum sum? Id est: cum ecclesia sum a vobis initiata, quae scilicet a vobis originem ducens, ipsa continuitate erit semper vestra, hoc est, apostolica ecclesia...
Porro eiusmodi continuatio stricte sit accipienda, secundum quod excludit quamcumque rupturam aut interpolationis possibilitatem. Dicendo enim: vobiscum sum omnibus diebus, omnem omnino quantumvis minimam, etiam unius diei, etiam unius instantis, removit interruptionem, et nullum novatribus spatium reliquit ubi legitimum suae sectae invenirent initium”.

“Et universim loquendo, ubicumque Deus dicitur fore cum aliquo, toties ea signatur assistentia quae in negotio pro quo promissa est, nullum compatitur lapsum, et omnem praecavet ab intento fine defectionem. Promittitur autem apostolis eorumque in perpetuum successoribus assistentia Christi continua et nusquam interrupta (omnibus nempe diebus), in ordine ad docendum omnia quaecumque in evangelica revelatione continetur. Ergo magisterium apostolicum in finem usque charismate infallibilitatis donatur, ita scilicet ut nusquam possit in ipso docendi exercitio, aut a revelatae veritatis ambitu exorbitare, aut a vero eius sensu quocumque modo deflectere” (pag. 387)

Est enim hoc magisterium perpetuum et perenne, per totum orbem se actu expandens, de quo demum vere accipitur quod scriptum est: Et quidem in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum, et in fines orbis terrae verba eorum” (pag. 399).


Billot says that the words omnibus diebus exclude even an instant in which the succession be interrupted. They received a continual and perennial assistance.

San Roberto Belarmino, De Membris Eclesae, Lib. 1, De Clericis, cap. VII.
Quote:
“...at Ecclesia numquam rege caret, semper enim Christus vivit, semper etiam sunt in Ecclesia Episcopi aliqui, qui Pastores novos eligere et creare possunt.”


The power Our Lord gave the Apostles and to their successors is the threefold power of Teaching, Sanctifying and Ruling.
"Data est mihi omnis potestas in cælo et in terra: euntes ergo docete (Teaching) omnes gentes : baptizantes (Sanctifying) eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti: docentes eos servare (Ruling) omnia quæcumque mandavi vobis : et ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus, usque ad consummationem sæculi."

Note the plural.

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Thu Oct 06, 2011 2:47 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)
Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Caro Gabriele!

First of all if you admit the possibility that all the Bishops and faithful may err during the vacancy of the See, I guess you won´t have much problem to accept at least the possibility they may be confused, will you? :D


Carissimo Cristian,
of course. But attention: in this sense, everyone can be confused and not only the guerardians… :)

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Let´s go little by little:

Quote:
- About the continuity of the See of Peter: so are we agree?


Well, do you agree the theologians are talking about the Primacy of Peter and not about apostolicity? :)

You quoted Fr. Ricossa quoting Zapelena (thesis IX) saying:

Quote:
“Si tratta di una successione che deve durare continuamente fino alla fine dei secoli. È sufficiente, evidentemente, una continuità morale, che non è interrotta durante il tempo in cui viene eletto il nuovo successore”

And then Zapelena continues: "During the vacancy of the Holy See, it remains in the Church the right and duty (along with the divine promise) to chose someone who legitimately succeeds the dead pope on the rights of the primacy. During all this time the constitution of the Church doesn´t change... etc"

Thesis IX reads: "From divine law Peter will have perpetual successors in the primacy until the end" (E Christi ipsius institutione Petrus habebit sucessores in primatu ad finem usque saeculorum)

Zapelena will deal on Apostolicity just on thesis XII: "The true Church of Christ is Apostolic by formal succession".

Salaverri (num. 1176) for instance defines Apostolicity: "basically it is the perennial identity of the mission in the Church that Christ gave to the Apostles when He founded her."

(second part below)


I am in complete agreement with every single sentence reported. :)


Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:37 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)
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
- About the apostolicity: thank you to pass to me these quotes. Highlights you, please, the words which prove that apostolicity must necessarily exist in act.


Ok here they are:


Palmieri D., Tractatus de Romano Pontifice, 1902.

Quote:
“Hinc Apostolus ad Ephes. IV, 11-12, ait quod Deus dedit quosdam quidem Apostolos... quosdam autem pastores et doctores ad consummationem Sanctorum in opus ministerii, in aedificationem corporis Christi. Ex quo patet necesse est ut actio eorum qui enumerati sunt perduret quoad consummandi sunt sancti et corpus Christi aedificandum. Dupliciter vero ipsa perdurare potest, vel quatenus eius efficacia maneat, vel quatenus continua successione semper actu existat. Iam vero patet hoc alterum quoque requiri; dicuntur enim a Deo illi dati in opus ministerii, quod actuale requirit exercitium potestatis. Porro Apostoli quatenus tales secundum totam amplitudinem potestatis perpetui esse non debebant; prophetas quoque et evangelistas, prout speciale munus significatur, perpetuos esse non debuisse satis constat; restat ergo ut pastores et doctores quatenus tales, quorum est proprium ministerium quo aedificatur corpus Christi et consummantur sancti, perpetua successione perdurent, quorum ministerium illud quoque obtinetur, ut ministerii aliorum quod transiit efficacia semper perseveret. Ex divina igitur institutione debent esse in Ecclesia post Apostolos ii qui sint pastores et doctores, qui nempe habeant potestatem regendi, docendi simulque sanctificandi.” (Poleg. Num. 17).
Fieri autem potest, ut Christus sit usque ad consummationem saeculi cum Apostolis docentibus alterutro modo: vel quatenus ipsae personae Apostolorum victurae erant usque ad finem saeculi, vel quatenus hi continuos successores erant habituri. Nam et in hac hypotesi Christus proprie locutus esset, dicens se futurum cum Apostolis usque ad finem saeculi; quod enim toti successioni quis dicere velit, recte primis affirmat spectatis ut primis, habituris perpetuos heredes. Iam vero priorem modum ipsa historia excludit; restat ergo alter. Igitur Magisterium Apostolicum in successoribus Apostolorum perpetuo durabit et Christo auxiliante munere suo feliciter fungentur discipulos faciens, docens h. e. actu se exercens”. (Num. 27).


To sum up: Palmieri says that when Our Lord said He will be with the Apostles all days until the end he could have mean two things, whether the Apostles were going to live until then or rather trough their successors who will have their same power. And he says that succession must exist continuously in act (continua successione semper actu existat)

Franzelin I., De Ecclesia 1907, Thesis XIII, pag. 222-3.

Quote:
“Ex his porro intelligitur distinctio in conditione ipsius Ecclesiae tempore sedis vacantis et tempore sedis plenae, illo scilicet priori tempore sedi Apostolicae vacanti divino iure debetur sed nondum est successor Petri, visibilis petra et visibile caput Ecclesiae; tempore sedis plenae is divino iure iam actu sedet. In considerationem potissimum venit ipsa radix totius vitae Ecclesiae, fidei inquam indefectibillitas et infallibilis custodia depositi. Certe non solum indefectibillitas in credendo (infallibilitatem passivam dicunt) sed etiam infallibilitas in praedicando veritatem revelatam et iam sufficienter pro fide catholica propositam manet in Ecclesia, etiam dum interim suo capite visibili orbata est, ut nec totum corpus Ecclesiae credendo nec totus Episcopatus docendo a fide tradita deficere et in haeresim delabi possit, quia talis permanentia Spiritus veritatis in Ecclesia, regno et sponsa et corpore Christi, comprehenditur in ipsa promissione et institutione indefectibilitatis Ecclesiar omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi. Idem quod de veritate (melius unitate) fidei contra haeresim, dicendum etiam est ex eadem ratione de unitate communionis contra schisma universale. Manet ergo lex et promissio divina perpetuae successionis in sede Petri ut radice et centro catholicae unitatis, huicque legi et promissioni respondet ex parte Ecclesiae non modo ius et officium sed etiam indefectibilitas in legitime procuranda et suscipienda successione et in servanda unitate communionis cum sede Petrina etiam vacante, intuitu successoris in ea expectandi et indefectibiliter futuri...”



Here Franzelin says that the indefectibility of the Church includes all days and prevent both the episcopacy and the faithful to fall into heresy.

Billot L, De Ecclesia Christi, 5 edición (1927), pag. 241 y s.

Quote:
“... Ecclesiam quam post se in terris relinquebat, nonnisi a collegio apostolico plantandam aperte declarabat, dum apostolis solis conferebat missionem sine qua, cum de supernaturali instituto agitur, omne tentamen frustraneum, omnis demum opera cassa atque irrita est. Sed non ad solum tempus vitae apostolorum mensura dierum huius ecclesiae restringebatur. Quippe ecclesia cum qua futurum se promittebat, quaeque ac de causa verae Christi Ecclesiae nomine insignitur, nullum in mundo nisi cum mundo ipso erat habitura finem. Et nihilominus, quantumvis tempus ab apostolorum morte cogitetur effluxisse, semper oportebit vereficari illud: ecce ego vobiscum sum, donec veniat consummatio... quid est igitur vobiscum sum? Id est: cum ecclesia sum a vobis initiata, quae scilicet a vobis originem ducens, ipsa continuitate erit semper vestra, hoc est, apostolica ecclesia...
Porro eiusmodi continuatio stricte sit accipienda, secundum quod excludit quamcumque rupturam aut interpolationis possibilitatem. Dicendo enim: vobiscum sum omnibus diebus, omnem omnino quantumvis minimam, etiam unius diei, etiam unius instantis, removit interruptionem, et nullum novatribus spatium reliquit ubi legitimum suae sectae invenirent initium”.

“Et universim loquendo, ubicumque Deus dicitur fore cum aliquo, toties ea signatur assistentia quae in negotio pro quo promissa est, nullum compatitur lapsum, et omnem praecavet ab intento fine defectionem. Promittitur autem apostolis eorumque in perpetuum successoribus assistentia Christi continua et nusquam interrupta (omnibus nempe diebus), in ordine ad docendum omnia quaecumque in evangelica revelatione continetur. Ergo magisterium apostolicum in finem usque charismate infallibilitatis donatur, ita scilicet ut nusquam possit in ipso docendi exercitio, aut a revelatae veritatis ambitu exorbitare, aut a vero eius sensu quocumque modo deflectere” (pag. 387)

Est enim hoc magisterium perpetuum et perenne, per totum orbem se actu expandens, de quo demum vere accipitur quod scriptum est: Et quidem in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum, et in fines orbis terrae verba eorum” (pag. 399).


Billot says that the words omnibus diebus exclude even an instant in which the succession be interrupted. They received a continual and perennial assistance.

San Roberto Belarmino, De Membris Eclesae, Lib. 1, De Clericis, cap. VII.
Quote:
“...at Ecclesia numquam rege caret, semper enim Christus vivit, semper etiam sunt in Ecclesia Episcopi aliqui, qui Pastores novos eligere et creare possunt.”


The power Our Lord gave the Apostles and to their successors is the threefold power of Teaching, Sanctifying and Ruling.
"Data est mihi omnis potestas in cælo et in terra: euntes ergo docete (Teaching) omnes gentes : baptizantes (Sanctifying) eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti: docentes eos servare (Ruling) omnia quæcumque mandavi vobis : et ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus, usque ad consummationem sæculi."

Note the plural.

Cristian


Thank you very much Cristian to have posted these quotes of important theologians. It is always nice and uplifting to read the words of so learned and pious persons. I feel I share everything, from the first to the last line. And - I say it very sincerely – I do not see any contradiction between these quotes and the Cassiciacum Thesis.
I take the expressions that may appear to you most contradictory respect to what I said earlier on apostolicity:

a) continua successione semper actu existat (Palmieri)
b) Est enim hoc magisterium perpetuum et perenne, per totum orbem se actu expandens (Billot)

They relate to: sub a) the apostolic succession and sub b) the apostolic magisterium. Well, the Pope is an apostle, he is the head of the apostles. Therefore, these statements must also be valid for him. And what is valid for him it is valid also for the apostles. And we all know that there is not always a Pope in act (and, therefore, not even his powers, including that of teaching, i.e. of magisterium): I refer to periods of vacancy of the Apostolic See (sede vacante). For this reason perhaps we must retain that the succession or the magisterium is interrupted? No, of course. You could tell me: “but during the vacancy of the Apostolic See the bishops are in act and their magisterium is in act. On the contrary now, according to the Thesis, is not so”. But, I repeat, during the vacancy of the Apostolic See is not the fallible magisterium of bishops or the government reduced and local of bishops that maintains the Church of Christ, but the fact that the Church has the power to elect the new Pope!

Then again you say:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
[indefectibility] prevent both the episcopacy and the faithful to fall into heresy


But this is not what they want to say Franzelin and the other authors! During every period of vacancy of Apostolic See, in fact, there is not entity, individual or collective, which can guarantee the infallibility of magisterium, because only the Pope can guarantee the infallibility!!! Does this mean rupture? Does it mean “defectibility” of the Church for the lack of its infallible magisterium? No, of course. In saying that the Holy Church is indefectible (under the aspect of the infallible magisterium) we do not say that, also when there is not the Pope (sede vacante), the episcopacy may guarantee an infallible magisterium. This goes against Catholic doctrine. I repeat, only the Pope can guarantee this infallibility, not the episcopacy by itself. We are catholics and not modernists.
Finally, Our Lord say that He will be with the apostles (vobiscum) (including the Pope) all the days (omnibus diebus) untill the end of the world, because, among the other things, is always assured to the Church the possibility of electing the person who may guarantee the infallibility of the magisterium (ordinary and universal; and only pontifical naturally). Obviously, then, the (infallible) magisterium approved by any Pope is eternal and, by consequence, always actual.
[In a previous post, then, you asked me: “Besides if the Church may err in matters of faith and moral during the interregnum, how do you know it didn`t happen already?”. I am not aware that during an interregnum is ever been promulgated by the Church a doctrine concerning faith or moral which all the Church had to believe].
Very cordially


Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:40 pm
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)
Gabriele wrote:
Carissimo Cristian,
of course. But attention: in this sense, everyone can be confused and not only the guerardians… :)


Of course :)


Quote:
I am in complete agreement with every single sentence reported. :)


Great! :)

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

Leon Bloy


Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:10 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)
Gabriele wrote:
Thank you very much Cristian to have posted these quotes of important theologians.


You are welcome!

Quote:
It is always nice and uplifting to read the words of so learned and pious persons.


Indeed!

Quote:
I feel I share everything, from the first to the last line. And - I say it very sincerely – I do not see any contradiction between these quotes and the Cassiciacum Thesis.


Ok let´s see...

Quote:
I take the expressions that may appear to you most contradictory respect to what I said earlier on apostolicity:

a) continua successione semper actu existat (Palmieri)
b) Est enim hoc magisterium perpetuum et perenne, per totum orbem se actu expandens (Billot)


Quote:
They relate to: sub a) the apostolic succession and sub b) the apostolic magisterium


True. Just take note though that Billot´s quote is from Quaestio VI: "De nota Apostolicitate" he is not talking about the power of magisterium (Quaestio X)

Quote:
Well, the Pope is an apostle, he is the head of the apostles. Therefore, these statements must also be valid for him. And what is valid for him it is valid also for the apostles.


Conclusion doesn´t follow. I know this is what Fr Ricossa says (Sod. 55 pag 51 f, French edition), but the fact the Pope may not exist in act, doesn´t mean all the rest of the Bishops and faithful may at the same time cease to exist also.
His argument, ni fallor, may be reduced to this: if we can say something about the Pope who is the Superior a fortiori we may say the same about the rest of the Church, but this is evidently false since, for instance, with that reasoning, it would be licit to conclude that during the death of the Pope all the electors and even the faithful may cease to exist... ask please Fr. Ricossa if according to his believes all the modernist cardinals and bishops along with Ratzinger may die at the same time...

Quote:
And we all know that there is not always a Pope in act (and, therefore, not even his powers, including that of teaching, i.e. of magisterium): I refer to periods of vacancy of the Apostolic See (sede vacante). For this reason perhaps we must retain that the succession or the magisterium is interrupted? No, of course. You could tell me: “but during the vacancy of the Apostolic See the bishops are in act and their magisterium is in act. On the contrary now, according to the Thesis, is not so”. But, I repeat, during the vacancy of the Apostolic See is not the fallible magisterium of bishops or the government reduced and local of bishops that maintains the Church of Christ, but the fact that the Church has the power to elect the new Pope!


Many things here:

1) May the Church lose the power to elect the Pope or to use it in a wrong way?
2) You still have to prove the magisterium is fallible.
3) When I say the Church is infallible while there is no Pope I mean to keep what was already defined and not to define something new, which I think it was your point.
4) How do you explain the words of Our Lord "omnibus diebus?"

Billot, page 387 says:
Quote:
Quod autem nunc considerandum venit, infallibilitatis charisma aperte signatur his verbis: ego vobiscum sum. Nam quid sit Deum esse cum aliquo in certo munere obeundo vel negotio aggrediendo, indubia et frequentissima Scripturae testimonia declarant (and after quoting Gen. XXI, 22; XXVI, 3; XXXI, 3; XXXIX, 2; Ex. III, 12; Jer. I, 19; Judg. VI, 12; Jn. III, 2, then he continues) Et universim loquendo, ubicumque Deus dicitur fore cum aliquo, toties ea signatur assistentia quae in negotio pro quo promissa est, nullum compatitur lapsum, et omnem praecavet ab intento fine defectionem. Promittitur autem apostolis aorumque in perpetuum successoribus assitentia Christi continua et nusquam interrupta (omnibus nempe diebus), in ordine ad docendum omnia quaequmque in evangelica revelatione continetur. Ergo magisterium apostolicum in finem usque charismate infallibilitatis donatur, ita scilicet ut nusquam possit in ipso docendi exercitio, aut a revelatae veritatis ambitu exorbitare, aut a vero eius sensu quocumque modo deflectere .


Which translated is something like this: "Now we have to consider that the charism of infallibility clearly is signified by these words: ego vobiscum sum. The meaning of God being with someone in order to carry out or to undertake something is declared by doubtless and very frequent testimonies of the Scriptures (then he quotes Gen. XXI, 22; XXVI, 3; XXXI, 3; XXXIX, 2; Ex. III, 12; Jer. I, 19; Judg. VI, 12; Jn. III, 2) And talking in general, each time it is said that God is with someone, it is always signified the assistance promised for some task, which is incompatible with any fall, and it avoids the defection from the intended aim. It is promised to the Apostles and to their perpetual successors, the continual and never interrupted assistance of Christ (all days), in order to teach all those things found in divine revelation. Therefore it is given to the apostolic magisterium the gift of infallibility until the end, in such a way that when the apostolic magisterium teaches it may never either go off from the sphere of revealed truth or to fall in either way from its true meaning (then he quotes also Jn XIV-16: et ego rogabo Patrem, et alium Paraclitum dabit vobis, ut maneat vobiscum in æternum, 17 Spiritum veritatis, quem mundus non potest accipere; Ephes. IV, 11: Et ipse dedit quosdam quidem apostolos, quosdam autem prophetas, alios vero evangelistas, alios autem pastores et doctores, 12 ad consummationem sanctorum in opus ministerii)"


Quote:
Then again you say:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
[indefectibility] prevent both the episcopacy and the faithful to fall into heresy


But this is not what they want to say Franzelin and the other authors!


These are the exact words of Franzelin:

Quote:
Certe non solum indefectibillitas in credendo (infallibilitatem passivam dicunt) sed etiam infallibilitas in praedicando veritatem revelatam et iam sufficienter pro fide catholica propositam manet in Ecclesia,etiam dum interim suo capite visibili orbata est, ut nec totum corpus Ecclesiae credendo nec totus Episcopatus docendo a fide tradita deficere et in haeresim delabi possit, quia talis permanentia Spiritus veritatis in Ecclesia, regno et sponsa et corpore Christi, comprehenditur in ipsa promissione et institutione indefectibilitatis Ecclesiae omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi


Translation: "In fact it remains in the Church not only the indefectibility in credendo (passive, as they say) but also the infallibility in teaching the revealed truth and already sufficiently proposed as of Catholic faith, even while during the interim her visible head is deprived of her, in such a way that neither the whole body of the Church while believing, nor the whole Episcopal body while teaching, may fall from the faith already handed down and to fall into heresy, because the continuance of the Spirit of truth (the Holy Ghost) in the Church, kingdom and spouse and body of Christ, is comprehended in the very promise and institution of the indefectibility of the Church all days until the end"

I think Franzelin is quite clear, isn´t he?


Quote:
During every period of vacancy of Apostolic See, in fact, there is not entity, individual or collective, which can guarantee the infallibility of magisterium, because only the Pope can guarantee the infallibility!!!


I distinguish, During every period of vacancy of Apostolic See there is not entity, individual or collective, which can guarantee the infallibility of magisterium, to define something, concedo; to keep what was already taught, nego.

In proof of this you have for instance the article of Fenton "The Local Church of Rome" I quoted you some posts ago. Could you read it?


Quote:
Does this mean rupture? Does it mean “defectibility” of the Church for the lack of its infallible magisterium? No, of course. In saying that the Holy Church is indefectible (under the aspect of the infallible magisterium) we do not say that, also when there is not the Pope (sede vacante), the episcopacy may guarantee an infallible magisterium.


If during the sede vacante the Church is not infallible, it means it is fallible, and if it is fallible it may defects and therefore it is not indefectible :)

Quote:
This goes against Catholic doctrine. I repeat, only the Pope can guarantee this infallibility, not the episcopacy by itself.


See above.

Quote:
We are catholics and not modernists.


Thank God!


Quote:
Finally, Our Lord say that He will be with the apostles (vobiscum) (including the Pope) all the days (omnibus diebus) untill the end of the world, because, among the other things, is always assured to the Church the possibility of electing the person who may guarantee the infallibility of the magisterium (ordinary and universal; and only pontifical naturally). Obviously, then, the (infallible) magisterium approved by any Pope is eternal and, by consequence, always actual.


You are reducing Apostolicity to the fact the Church may chose the successor of Saint Peter... nobody ever said such a thing.


Quote:
[In a previous post, then, you asked me: “Besides if the Church may err in matters of faith and moral during the interregnum, how do you know it didn`t happen already?”. I am not aware that during an interregnum is ever been promulgated by the Church a doctrine concerning faith or moral which all the Church had to believe].
Very cordially


How do you know for sure it didn´t happened after the death of Saint Peter? :)

God bless you!

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:01 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)
Thank you, Cristian. Very well done.

I sincerely do hope that Gabriele did not actually mean that when Our Lord said He would be with us all days until the end of the world, He only meant, "...so that some of you can elect a pope". :?

As you said, no one, at least no one of any "weight", has ever said such a thing.

Now, if Gabriele will only read and understand what you have written, he will conclude that our points are correct, and will drop this Guerardian foolishness. There are simply too many "holes" in the entire thesis to believe it.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Fri Oct 07, 2011 6:03 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:49 pm
Posts: 11
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
My apologies for having started this discussion without being able to be around for most of it. Unlike most others here I do understand what the theory claims, and it is not that hard. I don’t believe it is valid to reject it on the grounds of being supposedly so “complicated” since in fact it is not (yet so many here treat it as if it were incomprehensible), though it could be rejected on other grounds, and at any rate would be subject to significant modification. I have several comments regarding several points made in the previous:
1) “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. ... Not pragmatism, reason. Why would one invent a new theory unless he saw a problem?”
By that rational, once a theory is come up with to solve a problem, we are done, let’s move on to the next problem. No, when there is a problem to solve, we ought not just grab whatever theory first occurs to us and regard the problem as solved. Usually there would be several possible theories which should be first of all come up with, and then once it is clear that no further theories seem to be emerging then it is time to evaluate the various theories, compare, contrast, mix and match as necessary to compose something of a consensus, or at least (when dealing with a large number of alternative theories) whittle it down to a short list of two or three alternatives. It seems to me that it would be rare that the first theory ventured to solve a problem would in fact turn out to be the right or best one. Even if an initial theory might be in some sense “viable” that does not preclude the possibility of some later theory being clearly “better” in some sense.
2) “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.”
It is one thing for an office to be made to seem different from a material object in that a thief could possess the material object though he has no right to it, but how would this apply to such an intangible thing as an office. Nevertheless, I think a good illustration could clarify how this would work, for even ownership of an object it (or can be to some extent) also something of an intangible much like an ecclesiastical office. Example: A man steals a car, and then repaints it and proudly and openly drives it all around, getting his friends and neighbors and relatives to all believe the car is his, and even forging what papers are necessary to fool the officer that stops him for a moving violation into thinking that, at least, the car really is his. Obviously that does not change the moral fact that the car is not his, but his clever and thorough deception has deceived enough persons in that to them it seems as if he does rightly and truly own the car.
Well, this is just what we have in the various Catholic ecclesiastical offices. A bishop X of the diocese of Y could be yea verily a heretic, such that we can safely know that he does not have the authority of a Catholic bishop, but if he is able to deceive members of his staff, the priests, and nearly all of the laity (excluding only what few have sufficient knowledge and training to discern the heresy), then he does in some sense “possess” the office in that many are deceived into thinking he really has a right to it, even while we know he cannot genuinely possess it in any real or moral sense that could oblige us in conscience.
I realize that is not exactly what the Guérardians propose, but it is, if anything, at least a step closer to the truth, and goes to show that loss of office is not always as obvious as it seems that it should be.
3) “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.”
You might want to check with john Daly on that, for he did some very interesting research on that (with sources). His “material removal,” to coin a phrase useful in the context of this discussion, was effected at the Council of Ephesus, and until that removal officially happened some broke communion with him altogether while others sustained some limited degree of “communion” with him while nevertheless resisting his errors. Both groups, having acted in good faith, were accepted by the Church, and all submitted to the new bishop and were welcomed by him not as sinners repenting of some schism but as all having been good Catholics, once appointed as a result of Ephesus and the legitimate difference of opinion ended there. But his actual material or legal or visible or whatever removal was not “some undefined legal process” but the Council of Ephesus which examined his heresy at length, condemned it, declared Nestorius deposed, and recommended a new bishop to succeed him.
Now, to two new points I must put forth in all this:
1) During and for quite some several years after the reign of Pope (?) John XXIII, not so much as a single soul is known to have questioned his claim to the Roman Catholic Papacy. Effectively, the whole Church followed a false pope. Furthermore, I know of no basis for any bishop unrecognized by him and those he led to have set up shop to provide sacraments and so forth, with any legitimacy. It is only well after his death that questions arose as to his papal claims, and primarily in response only to the well-grounded suspicions as to the papal claims of Paul VI whose heretical ideas John XXIII in many ways anticipated and promoted. Did he and the Hierarchy attached to him have some claim to legitimacy or not? If not, then where was it? If so (which I believe), then what was it?
2) Again and again I see something of some unconscious “recognition” of the Vatican “hierarchy” as being in at least some vague legalistic or technical or whatever (far less definable) sense as if they continued to hold on to whatever legitimacy they evidently had to have possessed (despite the evident (in retrospect) heresies of their leader John XXIII) and that furthermore that they somehow possess it still. One sees this in such statements as “Neither has it been shown that all of the appointments by Paul VI of bishops and cardinals were invalid.” The idea is put forth in further responses that perhaps Paul VI might have momentarily exercised jurisdiction while obviously not possessing it in any habitual manner. (The mentioning of “common error” at these points is pretty much a red herring as it is of little concern what “authority” could exist due to a sincere mistake, but rather the real issue is where did (and does) the true and rightful apostolic authority reside, independent of any possible “common error”?) I guess this is supposed to grant some sort of “apostolic mission” to some bishop, if through some oversight they accidently managed to appoint a non-heretic, and also the man also managed to gain a valid episcopal consecration. If such a thing were genuinely possible with Paul VI (and especially after his heresies had become so evident as for there to have arisen, as did during his own lifetime, real and substantiated doubts as to his claims to the papacy), then what is to stop a similar appointment by the King of England to some “diocese” in England in the Anglican communion from possessing the same apostolic mission?
Or here is another look at this, and what I am getting at with this second point. Picture Paul VI naming some man to be a bishop of Unga Bunga (some part of the world somehow forgotten by Paul VI ever since then, John Paul I and II, Benedict XVI, and, regrettably, also the entire traditional Catholic community to this day) in 1967, and the man also happens to be a real Catholic and not a modernist heretic, and that he is still serving there to this day. Being consecrated in 1967 just before the ritual was destroyed his consecration is indisputably valid. But also being as this appointment occurred after several well-known heresies on the part of Paul VI and already present doubts regarding his claim to the papacy, such that he could not have been really and morally a true and valid pope at that point in time (apart from what limited “exercise” but not “possessing” of jurisdiction that anyone, even the King of England would be capable of, and again not counting the possibility of "common error" as that is not relevant here), what valid “apostolic mission” could such a non-pope have imparted upon him (that the King of England or anyone else could not have likewise imparted)?
If any of you imagine that such a bishop would happen to possess even the faintest shred of any superiority as to any claim of an apostolic mission over that of any and every traditionalist bishop today (Pivarunas, Dolan, Kelly, Sanborn, Williamson, Fellay...), then that right there is quite properly to be regarded as a kind of unconscious Guérardianism. In other words you are (practically all here) Guérardians already! You tell me how this bishop of Unga Bunga has any superior claim to lawfully appointed and canonical and visible and legal authority and apostolic mission (and not merely with “common error” but in actuality) than any or all of our traditionalist bishops and I will tell you exactly how a Vatican leader could be a material but not formal pope. I make no promise that such a “telling” would coincide with the presentations of any known Guérardians, but only that it would show what could be validly meant (in the context of all known theological texts referred to in this thread, or as could be yet future) by the phrase "a material but not formal 'pope'.”


Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:59 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)
Good Heavens, Griff! Have you read your last post completely through? I don't intend to insult you, but it IS rather disjointed and disorganized!

OK. Let me ask you a couple of questions:

1) Do you understand WHAT "supplied jurisdiction" is? I am asking you for a clear definition.

2) Do you know WHO or WHAT supplies this "jurisdiction"?

3) Do you understand who can USE this "supplied jurisdiction"? (Hint: It cannot be the King of England, nor any layman)

4) Do you understand WHEN this "supplied jurisdiction" can be used?

5) Do you understand WHY this "supplied jurisdiction" is used?

6) Do you understand what the term "common error" means, and how that is applied in this case?

Please explain.

Thanks and God Bless,

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Oct 12, 2011 3:42 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Griff Ruby wrote:
Unlike most others here I do understand what the theory claims


Dear Griff,

Could you tell us what you have read on this thesis? Have you read Guerard's own publications, for example?

Quote:
By that rational, once a theory is come up with to solve a problem, we are done, let’s move on to the next problem. No, when there is a problem to solve, we ought not just grab whatever theory first occurs to us and regard the problem as solved.


Perhaps the objection was unclear. At least, you haven't understood it. The objection is as follows. The Cassiciacum Thesis is a solution to the problem that the institutional Church has ceased to exist. This in turn rests upon the claim that there are no Catholic bishops with ordinary jurisdiction remaining. I object that this latter claim has never been proved. If my denial of this claim is correct, then there is no problem to be solved and therefore no necessity for any theory, including the Cassiciacum Thesis.

Quote:
I realize that is not exactly what the Guérardians propose, but it is, if anything, at least a step closer to the truth, and goes to show that loss of office is not always as obvious as it seems that it should be.


The discussion on this point does not concern what is knowable, and especially not what is "obvious." It concerns the nature of offices and whether there are in reality two (or more) separable components (the material and formal) into which they can be distinguished in such a way that the material can exist without the formal.

Quote:
You might want to check with john Daly on that, for he did some very interesting research on that (with sources). His “material removal,” to coin a phrase useful in the context of this discussion, was effected at the Council of Ephesus, and until that removal officially happened some broke communion with him altogether while others sustained some limited degree of “communion” with him while nevertheless resisting his errors. Both groups, having acted in good faith, were accepted by the Church, and all submitted to the new bishop and were welcomed by him not as sinners repenting of some schism but as all having been good Catholics, once appointed as a result of Ephesus and the legitimate difference of opinion ended there. But his actual material or legal or visible or whatever removal was not “some undefined legal process” but the Council of Ephesus which examined his heresy at length, condemned it, declared Nestorius deposed, and recommended a new bishop to succeed him.


John Daly agrees with what I have said here, I believe. If you wish to cite him, please find the material you are mentioning and quote it, Griff. It shouldn't be that hard and would be a much more scholarly and useful approach.

In brief I will say only that a legal process may result in a substantive or merely declarative result. In the case of Nestorius, the result was merely declarative. That is, it recognised an existing fact. There are many good reasons for doing this, such as ensuring that all know what the situation is, ensuring that there are no future challenges to the resolution arrived at (especially to the legitimacy of the new bishop), in securing the temporal assets of the diocese under civil law which might not recognise in a satisfactory manner the operation of divine law, etc. It is also useful in ensuring the unity of the Church, preventing those whose judgement has been defective from continuing to maintain the claims of the heretic, even if they do not regard him as a Catholic or as a good bishop (i.e. in preventing people with a Guerardian outlook from insisting that Nestorius remains bishop materialiter). I add that last point in humour, but with a serious purpose also. There were no Guerardians in Nestorius's time, but there have always been men who didn't understand the divine law that Bellarmine expounds, and these could and did confuse such events.

Quote:
1) During and for quite some several years after the reign of Pope (?) John XXIII, not so much as a single soul is known to have questioned his claim to the Roman Catholic Papacy. Effectively, the whole Church followed a false pope.

When you have proved that John XXIII was not pope, these questions may arise. Until then, they don’t arise.

Quote:
2) Again and again I see something of some unconscious “recognition” of the Vatican “hierarchy” as being in at least some vague legalistic or technical or whatever (far less definable) sense as if they continued to hold on to whatever legitimacy they evidently had to have possessed (despite the evident (in retrospect) heresies of their leader John XXIII) and that furthermore that they somehow possess it still. One sees this in such statements as “Neither has it been shown that all of the appointments by Paul VI of bishops and cardinals were invalid.”

My point is not only not vague or unconscious, it is precise and supported by explicit texts. Read canon 209 to begin with. You are approaching this as a psychologist or propagandist, not a theologian or canonist.

Quote:
The idea is put forth in further responses that perhaps Paul VI might have momentarily exercised jurisdiction while obviously not possessing it in any habitual manner. (The mentioning of “common error” at these points is pretty much a red herring as it is of little concern what “authority” could exist due to a sincere mistake, but rather the real issue is where did (and does) the true and rightful apostolic authority reside, independent of any possible “common error”?)

If common error is a red herring then your argument is with the Code of Canon Law, not with me.

Quote:
I guess this is supposed to grant some sort of “apostolic mission” to some bishop, if through some oversight they accidently managed to appoint a non-heretic, and also the man also managed to gain a valid episcopal consecration.

The valid episcopal consecration is a distinct question which arises in connection with bishops appointed after 1968, but not before. This has been made clear already. Could you please read what was written before commenting?

Quote:
If such a thing were genuinely possible with Paul VI (and especially after his heresies had become so evident as for there to have arisen, as did during his own lifetime, real and substantiated doubts as to his claims to the papacy), then what is to stop a similar appointment by the King of England to some “diocese” in England in the Anglican communion from possessing the same apostolic mission?

The king couldn’t appoint bishops to dioceses because his office was not the relevant office. He isn’t in Holy Orders, to begin with, an absolutely necessary requirement. The Church doesn’t supply Holy Orders when they are lacking. A priest without faculties can absolve validly by supplied jurisdiction because he lacks only one element – jurisdiction – which is supplied by the Church. What does a putative pope lack? Jurisdiction. This one missing element can be supplied. (I accept that Ratzinger lacks episcopal orders also, but we’re not primarily concerned with him, we’re concerned with Paul VI.)

Quote:
Or here is another look at this, and what I am getting at with this second point. Picture Paul VI naming some man to be a bishop of Unga Bunga (some part of the world somehow forgotten by Paul VI ever since then, John Paul I and II, Benedict XVI, and, regrettably, also the entire traditional Catholic community to this day) in 1967, and the man also happens to be a real Catholic and not a modernist heretic, and that he is still serving there to this day. Being consecrated in 1967 just before the ritual was destroyed his consecration is indisputably valid. But also being as this appointment occurred after several well-known heresies on the part of Paul VI and already present doubts regarding his claim to the papacy, such that he could not have been really and morally a true and valid pope at that point in time (apart from what limited “exercise” but not “possessing” of jurisdiction that anyone, even the King of England would be capable of, and again not counting the possibility of "common error" as that is not relevant here), what valid “apostolic mission” could such a non-pope have imparted upon him (that the King of England or anyone else could not have likewise imparted)?

This has all been answered, so it is unclear why you don’t either object to what was written or leave the matter alone. It is certainly not useful to pose as objections what are really just statements ignoring what has been said.
But to save you from reading the small amount of material already written, since you don’t appear keen to do so, here are the answers.
1. The bishop concerned does not have to be in evident possession of his office to this day. He could have “resigned” and retired, but his resignation would be invalid due to the lack of a lawful superior to accept it, and therefore he is still really the bishop of wherever.
2. The apostolic mission is received with the office, which was established by an indubitably true pope at some point in the past.
3. The King of England example has been answered above. You really need to read some canon law and dogmatic theology before commenting on this kind of thing.

Quote:
If any of you imagine that such a bishop would happen to possess even the faintest shred of any superiority as to any claim of an apostolic mission over that of any and every traditionalist bishop today (Pivarunas, Dolan, Kelly, Sanborn, Williamson, Fellay...), then that right there is quite properly to be regarded as a kind of unconscious Guérardianism.

Nonsense. And it would be clearer and more polite if you left out the adjectives and tried to speak plainly and directly, and also precisely. If on the other hand you don’t respect the methods employed here, then why bother joining in?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 12, 2011 3:54 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Here's an explicit text supporting Jim Larrabee's point about the nature of the See of Rome.

Quote:
For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, is not so strictly necessary.

(Dorsch, Institutions Theologiae Fundamentalis, 1928, De Ecclesia 2:196-7. Emphasis added.).

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:51 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Gabriele wrote:
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?


Dear Gabriele,

Your English term is quite exact - we say "the Church teaching" also. It's a reasonable point. My own thinking on this is based upon examples such as Cardinal Siri and Bishop de Castro Mayer, and Archbishop Lefebvre for that matter.

Certainly Bishop de Castro Mayer was Bishop of Campos until he died, in 1991. On the same argument (lack of a lawful superior to accept his resignation) Archbishop Lefebvre remained Bishop of Tulle until he died in 1991 also. (Technically, their dioceses would have been rendered "embarrassed" by their "retirements"). The question would return to men like Siri, who retained the faith and professed it personally, but who permitted the "reforms" of Vatican II to be introduced into their dioceses. After "retirement", would a man like that who retained ordinary jurisdiction (for the same reason that Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer retained it) be considered as a constituent part of the Church teaching (ecclesia docens)?

It seems to me that it isn't necessary for a man to be a constituent part of the ecclesia docens to be always and at all times actually teaching. If he remains a Catholic, and therefore retains his jurisdiction, then he is by the very fact a member of the hierarchy. The fact that he is not actively teaching does not appear to me to be an essential problem. I understand if you don't agree with this, of course, however I invite you to explain why.

The other factor to keep in mind is that parochial appointments are essentially a means of granting permanent delegated jurisdiction. An essential part of this for our purposes is that parish priests thereby participate, as delegates of the bishop, in his office of teaching. Now, if a priest remains in his office who was appointed by a real ordinary, then he continues to preach on that ordinary's behalf, and in this way the ordinary continues to exercise his active office of preaching the faith. Fr. Oswald Baker of England was appointed to his parish prior to Vatican II and only died a few years ago, so it seems to me that a case of a Catholic priest ordained under the old rite and appointed to a parish by an ordinary validly appointed by Paul VI could still be in possession of his office today.

Anyway, these are only possibilities. The whole situation is a great mystery and we won't have all the answers until Judgement Day, even if we have some of them a little earlier. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:15 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:49 pm
Posts: 11
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
> it IS rather disjointed and disorganized
Sorry, I had to write it on a flaky computer and without a lot of time to cover a lot of material.
> Do you understand WHAT "supplied jurisdiction" is? I am asking you for a clear definition.
> Read canon 209 to begin with.
I do understand supplied jurisdiction and common error. But they are not relevant to the question that I am pursuing. Supplied jurisdiction is only necessary where some greater form of jurisdiction, regular or delegated, is lacking. To contend that the Church could ever possibly continue without so much as a single hierarchical member (bishop) possessing regular or at least delegated jurisdiction (all functioning exclusively under the auspices of supplied jurisdiction) is, to me anyway, heresy.
And as we also know, heretics cannot validly hold offices in the Church and the Vatican organization is full of heretics, and even if some individual member therein is not a heretic, how does one account for their continued submission to a series of known and self-evident heretics?
So, the question is “where is the Church Teaching and Church Ruling, not in any mere “supplied jurisdiction” sense of common error, but actually and lawfully? The Guérardian thesis is a stab at an answer to that, however inadequate. For that matter, so is the Siri hypothesis and also the speculation that there might still to this day, yet be some as yet undiscovered “de Castro-Meyer” out yonder somewhere. I am not interested in where supplied jurisdiction could validly reside (which is just about any cleric validly ordained/consecrated, given the appropriate circumstances), but where regular or at least delegated jurisdiction reside.
To be brutally frank, I am at a loss to understand why anyone would be bringing up supplied jurisdiction and common error when I have made it categorically clear that that is NOT the question (or at least it is not relevant to MY question).
> The Cassiciacum Thesis is a solution to the problem that the institutional Church has ceased to exist. This in turn rests upon the claim that there are no Catholic bishops with ordinary jurisdiction remaining.
The Cassiciacum Thesis is a claim that bishops with ordinary jurisdiction do remain, albeit only materially (and that, apparently, that that would be enough, which I doubt). Do not try to turn it into a denial of what it is attempting to claim.
> I object that this latter claim has never been proved. If my denial of this claim is correct, then there is no problem to be solved and therefore no necessity for any theory, including the Cassiciacum Thesis.
It is the institutional Church I am looking for. Maybe we can start by getting one simpler thing straightened out. Is the Vatican organization the institutional Church or not? To me, sedevacantism has always been about the realization that it is not the institutional Church. Only Guérardianism has it that the Vatican organization could still be (somehow, in some mere “material” fashion) the institutional Church. But absolute sedevacantism (i. e. the non-Guérardian kind) means (or so I have always thought and understood) that the Vatican organization is NOTHING. Am I mistaken or does there exist more than one kind of absolute sedevacantism?
Anyway, that is how I take absolute sedevacantism, namely that it means that the Vatican organization is precisely NOTHING. I regard it as proven that it is not the institutional Church, and furthermore that its “bishops” have no ordinary jurisdiction.
If one takes such a position to mean that today’s Vatican organization is not the institutional Church, then does that mean that there is no institutional Church anymore? That is the problem which the Cassiciacum thesis sets out to address. It’s solution is to try to find some way for the Vatican organization to continue to “be” that institutional Church all these years even while it plainly has utterly failed to function in that capacity in any way whatsoever for decades.
So there IS a problem. The Vatican organization has not functioned in the slightest as though it were in any way the institutional Church since at least Vatican II. All solutions to that problem boil down to three basic “solutions” that I can see:
1) The Vatican is still, in some technical or legal or visible or juridical or whatever (“material”?) sense, still that institutional Church. This position, in my opinion, is Guérardianism, and not necessarily a bad thing, but if one takes this “solution” let us be open and clear about what our position really amounts to. Granted the existing Guérardians today seem to have a great need to go back to the drawing board and rework their theory to overcome quite a number of serious problems that many have brought up (and I found yet one more, which was what started this thread). Any form of “absolute sedevacantism” that takes the Vatican organization to be anything more than NOTHING really amounts to this position, perhaps with more refinement than with the other Guérardians, but this position none the less (and Resistance and Indult/Motu positions belong here too).
2) The institutional Church continues to exist to this day as some other visible establishment, independent of the Vatican organization. Probably the cleanest example of this sort of solution would be the “Siri” hypothesis. If some election really had preceded the election of Roncalli, and if this person had (at least secretly) continued to rule, to establish cardinals and bishops and a full fledged secretive shadow hierarchy (all carefully hidden for reasons I would definitely need explained to me), then he and those he has been secretly leading would simply be that institutional Church.
Even the scenario of some still-faithful bishop would also belong to this category, since his validity and jurisdiction would have come from before and have nothing to do with the Vatican organization one way or the other. Indeed, when I say “independent of the Vatican organization” I do not mean “mutually exclusive from the Vatican organization.” Bp. De Castro-Meyer, up until his forced “resignation” in 1981 would be the shining example of that. As a true bishop, he had been appointed and consecrated by the true Church, and yet at the same time he was also tolerated by the Vatican organization and permitted (until his “retirement”) to function and be recognized by them as a hierarchical member in good standing with their organization.
But the irrelevance of his continued membership in that organization is demonstrated by the fact that after his forced “retirement,” once he therefore had ceased to have any active role in that NOTHING organization, his real episcopal activities did not cease but continued, as he “lost” precisely nothing as a result of his supposed “retirement.” It is good that that point is amply and trivially demonstrable from the fact that he had no legitimate superior to accept his resignation, and that furthermore, the Vatican organization really had and has no authority to take anything away from him with regards his juridical authority as a Catholic bishop.
3) The institutional Church has ceased to exist. Perhaps some home-aloners might care to posit this. If it were actually the case then God has failed us and it is now time to go find another Savior, this time one capable of keeping His promises.
But back to point (2), unless we want to take some sort of “refuge” in some sort of position (1) and become, at least at heart, Guérardians, this still gives us yet one more problem to solve, and as Catholics we are morally obliged to seek a solution. Since the Vatican organization is not the institutional Church, we are obliged to discover and join whatever IS the institutional Church today, legally and juridically and visibly, and without any need or recourse to mere “supplied jurisdiction.”


Sat Oct 15, 2011 3:16 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:49 pm
Posts: 11
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
> John Daly agrees with what I have said here, I believe. If you wish to cite him, please find the material you are mentioning and quote it, Griff.
Fair enough. Since I am asking others to please do some homework it is only fair that I do likewise. It’s hosted on your own site, John. Right here:
http://sedevacantist.com/heresyhistory.html
Pay particular attention to item 15. The most relevant sentence to my point I was making with that reference is the sentence that reads, “His ordinary, Eulalius, while refusing the heresy of Nestorius, rebuked the holy monk Hypathius for withdrawing from communion with their Nestorius, who was their patriarch, before the judgment of a council.” Notice in particular how Eulalius simply referred to Nestorius as their “patriarch,” and such a statement simply passes, not being rebuked. Do we see Hypathius saying to him, “Hey, don’t call him ‘patriarch’ since such an evident heretic (as you, Eulalius, also so acknowledge) has already lost his office thereby and is therefore NOTHING within the Church."? No we don't (though it might be in some part of the story not quoted, if anyone cares to chase that down).
Now come the part where I must ask for a little “homework” on the part of others, namely, is there any place where Eulalius personally, or the position he took at that time, namely of referring to Nestorius the heretic as “their patriarch, before the judgment of a council” was ever expressly and directly decided against by the Church? Is there anyone (Ancient Father, Pope, Theological commentator, etc.) who ever states, for example, that “Eulalius was justly reproved for having taken the inferior course of attempting even some limited communion with an evident heretic, while Hypathius is to be praised for taking the right course in such an event.”
Does St. Bellarmine, in advocating his Fifth position or at any other time, go so far as to state that there is utterly no function to be served by what is admittedly a “purely declarative” statement so as to make official and legal what has already become true theologically and morally? If a bishop were to become a heretic (and thereby lose his office “in re”), would St. Bellarmine (or anyone else) claim that there is no need for the Pope to depose him or remove him or declare him to be no longer a bishop (or even put him on trial and judge him as he could as his superior), but just let things drift along indefinitely while individual Catholics may or may not figure out that they have no bishop?


Sat Oct 15, 2011 3:48 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Griff,

There is no place on these forums for home-baked speculations.

If you have some theological or canonical source which has led you to believe a point of doctrine or law which you think is worth sharing, then please cite it and the inference you draw from it.

In this case you not only have no source, you're clearly ignorant of the relevant authorities, and you are asking others to prove a negative. It's just a waste of everybody's time, and more importantly, you can do this kind of thing all over the Internet, so why are you doing it here?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Oct 15, 2011 4:02 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Griff Ruby wrote:
To be brutally frank, I am at a loss to understand why anyone would be bringing up supplied jurisdiction and common error when I have made it categorically clear that that is NOT the question (or at least it is not relevant to MY question).


Please Griff, this is insulting and stupid. The reason it came up is because the polite members of this forum think it relevant. But it certainly looks like you merely want a soap box where you can float your own ideas without inconvenient objections.

The rest of your post is a bunch of assumptions dressed up in surprise that everybody doesn't hold your views, as if those were ever proved by anybody, anywhere.

If you won't or can't argue a case in a scholarly and ordered fashion, this is the wrong place for you.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Oct 15, 2011 4:09 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:49 pm
Posts: 11
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
> For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate. These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, is not so strictly necessary. (Dorsch, Institutions Theologiae Fundamentalis, 1928, De Ecclesia 2:196-7. Emphasis added.).
It is one thing to admit that any office, even the supreme office, can be vacant without destroying the continuity of the Church or the Primacy of its leader, as Dorsch states. But it is quite another thing to claim that such continuity (and with it Primacy, and for that matter every other characteristic of the Teaching and Ruling Historic Church) could be sustained through any point in time during which each and every last office of Episcopal grade and higher would all be empty simultaneously. Ergo, there simply has to be someone legitimate and orthodox at each point in time, even if some may fall for a season, but then be accepted back into the Church by another who has not fallen.
Some fallen but ancient and truly-established-by-Pope-Pius-XII bishop certainly cannot be the holder of some office to which he was originally appointed to while he remains yet fallen. And if he did repent, would that of itself be enough? Wouldn’t somebody have to receive him back into the Church, for example by accepting his abjuration of his error? If Nestorius had repented of his heresy, would the bare fact of that repentance alone have restored him to his former office? How about after the Council of Ephesus and some other bishop has taken his former place? But perhaps these sorts of questions might be best handled in another thread (perhaps one already exists?).


Sat Oct 15, 2011 4:21 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Griff Ruby wrote:
Is the Vatican organization the institutional Church or not? To me, sedevacantism has always been about the realization that it is not the institutional Church.


Well welcome to reality, Griff. What has always been "sedevacantism" to you is not anybody's concern. Sedevacantism is the denial that Paul VI (or John XXIII) and his successors were popes. Pretty much everything else has always been disputed.

Your whole approach inverts the order of reason. I'll give you one last chance to approach this in a productive manner. State for us when the Vatican ceased being the headquarters of the Catholic Church and what exactly the signs of that event were.

Here are some questions which might assist.

Did the "nothing" organisation appear in 1965 with the promulgation of the last of the documents of Vatican II? Did it appear in 1962 with the election of Paul VI? Did it appear in 1969 with the New Mass? And as an essential part of your thesis, it is obviously necessary to state what happened to the Catholic Church at the same time, since apparently it disappeared as an institution on the same date that the New Church took over the buildings.

And please cite some authorities for the principles you apply to the facts in order to arrive at your thesis. There's no hurry, so don't feel that a lengthy post without any references written on a flaky computer is better than a delay. The delay is a much better option.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Oct 15, 2011 4:26 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Griff Ruby wrote:
Some fallen but ancient and truly-established-by-Pope-Pius-XII bishop certainly cannot be the holder of some office to which he was originally appointed to while he remains yet fallen. And if he did repent, would that of itself be enough? Wouldn’t somebody have to receive him back into the Church, for example by accepting his abjuration of his error? If Nestorius had repented of his heresy, would the bare fact of that repentance alone have restored him to his former office? How about after the Council of Ephesus and some other bishop has taken his former place? But perhaps these sorts of questions might be best handled in another thread (perhaps one already exists?).


Griff, this is your theory, you do the work and see if it's true then prove it to others.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Oct 15, 2011 4:28 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:49 pm
Posts: 11
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
> Please Griff, this is insulting and stupid.
Please do not take offense; I have no intention of insulting. Maybe I am not good at phrasing my questions, but the questions are perhaps a bit complex and subtle, but they are asked in all sincerity. If what I have been asking are “dumb questions” then I’m sorry. And even if you don’t want to accept my protestations of sincerity, then at least please regard this as a chance to rehearse you answers to the sorts of questions anyone interested in becoming a sedevacantist and utterly new at it might or should want to ask.
I am always and ever challanging my own assumptions, but I realize that in doing so I may well get others to do the same, as I think it is always a good thing to test and verify them. I don't have the terminology. What might take me a whole paragraph to say might well be covered by some single technical theological expression or word, but as I don't know that expression or word I am forced to use the lengthy ad verbose circumlocutions that I have been using. I am trying to get to the bottom of some simple questions that anyone interested in becoming a sedevacantist would have a right to know. I always thought I knew, but it does seem at times here that there does remains some "rest of the story" that you and others here all seem to be taking for granted and yet rather reticent to speak about.
My goal here is to associate with experts, or at least the nearest approximation to such as can be so readily approached. My dream would be to fly out to Fr. Stepanich and sit down with him and review all my ideas about the Church today, putting it past his profound knowlege, for him to correct, adjust, or even merely come to understand it and see the truth of it and thereby have also the necessary technical theological ways of putting it, such that I can finally sound more like I know what I am talking about, especially to trained expert clergy. But I fear he will probably be gone before that can happen, and this list will have to do as the next best thing.


Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:55 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:49 pm
Posts: 11
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
>> Some fallen bishop from Pope Pius XII might repent...
> Griff, this is your theory, you do the work and see if it's true then prove it to others.
No, that is not "my theory" at all. If anything it seems more like yours, John. Some bishop somewhere *must* have regular jurisdiction over some diocese, or something to that effect, along with "After 'retirement', would a man like that who retained ordinary jurisdiction (for the same reason that Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer retained it) be considered as a constituent part of the Church teaching (ecclesia docens)?" All I did was re-ask the same question you did, and admittedly not as well. I was hoping that you were asking it rhetorically and that you had an answer to it. But if not, then I guess we are both in the dark on that one.


Sat Oct 15, 2011 6:06 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Griff Ruby wrote:
I don't have the terminology. What might take me a whole paragraph to say might well be covered by some single technical theological expression or word, but as I don't know that expression or word I am forced to use the lengthy ad verbose circumlocutions that I have been using.


Griff, this limitation of yours has an obvious cause - you haven't studied the authorities. Please do so if you want to comment or object.

As for asking dumb questions, on the one hand you tell us boldly that you understand the Cassiciacum Thesis when most others don't, and you frankly explain to us what our views really amount to, neither of which came across as a person who had his own limitations clearly in view, and now you tell us you're not well informed and can't express yourself in the Church's language.

It sounds to me like you must be a bright guy who could easily learn the language. We've published huge swathes of theology and law from all sorts of approved theologians and canonists, right here in easy to access form, almost all in English.

Quote:
you and others here all seem to be taking for granted and yet rather reticent to speak about.


It's all here, Griff. Just read some threads. There's no reticence to speak or write about these matters, there's a reticence to permit bad theology to be put forth at all, which is why we are strict with our rules.

Quote:
My goal here is to associate with experts, or at least the nearest approximation to such as can be so readily approached.


Well we're not experts, but if you really think we are, why don't you read what we've already written and then ask specific questions?

I don't doubt your sincerity, but I do think you are very unclear in your own mind about what you're doing and why.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Oct 15, 2011 8:48 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Dear Griff, and all,

I've been pondering this and wondering if the whole question is not clear in terms of what is at issue, why the Cassiciacum Thesis exists at all, and why it matters. I'll try and outline the situation.

In the mind of Guerard des Lauriers the observation that the bishops of the whole world, including the purported Roman Pontiff, were practicing and preaching a new religion, led to the logical problem that the Church as a visible institution had ceased to exist - this because the "ecclesia docens" (the Church teaching) was no longer was active. The Cassiciacum Thesis is his solution to this problem. (The Church teaching is distinguished from the Church taught - that is, all of the members of the Church, including the members of the Church teaching, insofar as they also must necessarily submit to the magisterium.)

Gabriele has given expression to the fundamental issue by asking whether a bishop who adopted the decrees of Vatican II as the teaching of the Church and introduced the New Mass etc. to his diocese could be said to be a member of the body which we refer to as the Church teaching.

The same problem arises in other theories of the crisis, including for example the theory that asserts that Vatican II was explicitly heretical and that all who subscribed to it were therefore manifest heretics and no longer members of the Church or of her hierarchy. Likewise the theory of Bishop Sanborn regarding the "una cum" clause in the Mass finds itself up against the same problem - did the Church cease altogether to offer acceptable worship to God for several years during which all priests inserted the name of the heretical non-pope in the Canon of the Mass? Did God "hold His nose" during these years every time Holy Mass was offered? Could the Church exist whilst offering only blasphemous public worship? To ask the question is to answer it. (Although, to one who believes that a merely material succession suffices to maintain the formal apostolicity of the Church, this last theory would possibly pose no difficulty. But don't ask me to explain it!)

Now the first thing to do when faced by the Cassiciacum Thesis (precisely because it is novelty, not found in the authorities) is to ask whether it has arisen in service of a genuine need. Not on a pragmatic level, but on a theoretical level. That is, is there a logical doctrinal problem to resolve? Further, is the problem defined correctly, if it exists?

My own reading of the authors is that the term "ecclesia docens" despite the active form being employed, does not mean the Church always actively teaching. It refers to the episcopal college, that is, the successors of the Apostles taken collectively (including the pope) in their teaching role. That's how it is used and it seems apparent that this is its meaning. It means the hierarchy, considered as the official teachers of divine revelation.

So we immediately doubt that the problem definitely exists, and further, we see that whatever problem does exist has not been accurately defined. We observe in connection with this that there many men who adopted the Vatican II reforms precisely because they felt obliged by the authority of the Church to do so, and in this very motive we see a horrible composition - heterodoxy in thought and practice for a purely orthodox motive. Cardinal Siri is a famous example, and there were many others, including Bishop Stewart of Bendigo and Bishop Thomas of Geraldton in this country. The problem, such as it is, is that these men ceased officially to practice and preach the faith in its integrity, precisely by adopting the New Mass and the new catechisms flowing in the wake of Vatican II. So as far as the bishops were concerned, with notable exceptions such as Bishop de Castro Mayer, the teaching activity of the Church, which finds its principle in the work of the bishops, effectively ceased.

Yet it would be a misjudgement to assert that all such bishops were manifest heretics. (With those who are addicted to this misjudgement, I have nothing to say. We disagree on fundamental principles, principles which are clearly and unanimously expressed in the Church's theology manuals, and therefore we have insufficient common ground to work upon.) Given that not all of these bishops were manifest heretics, they remained members of the college of bishops, which is to say, they remained successors of the apostles. Their status had not changed.

Most bishops did, I believe, disappear into heresy. We're discussing the exceptions.

Sedevacantism, as a school of thought, followed down at least three more or less broad paths from the late 'seventies onwards. The followers of Guerard des Lauriers, the schismatically inclined fanatics, and the remainder who simply insisted that Paul VI (and/or John XXIII) and successors were not true popes. The latter group often do not perceive any urgent problem to be solved. I have a good friend who is a long-standing sedevacantist priest, and an excellent philosopher and theologian, who told me recently that he doesn't feel any need to explain the further consequences of sedevacantism. He's happy to have answered the main question and get on with his work, which is to save souls through the usual priestly mission.

Which brings us to the present discussion. I should not have to point this out, but we're not aiming at any practical end here in terms of identifying what needs to be done to save the Church or ensure her continuity. It's not our role. All that we are doing is discussing the various theoretical problems which arise in the minds of sedevacantists (or potential sedevacantists) so as to provide, if possible, a proven and completely Catholic theoretical framework by which to explain the crisis. In one sense it's an effort to answer those who assert that "sedevacantism is a dead end." (As if sedeplenism were not a dead beginning!)

The practical end which justifies and motivates the effort is to reduce scandal, the scandal of the crisis. That is, we aim to show that the crisis, whilst a fearsome mystery in many respects, does not impinge on divine faith. Or, to put the same thing in different words, we need not be disturbed. Our Lord is apparently asleep in the boat, and the storm will pass when He wills to calm it, which He will inevitably do.

So going back to Griff's first post, and my reaction to it, how does the Thesis get off first base? That is, what's the problem it is meant to solve? And that is where our considerations of the fundamental observation of the Guerardians ("the Church teaching" has otherwise ceased to exist) and our exploration of ways in which the hierarchy will be restored without ever ceasing completely to exist, come from. We are showing that there is no need for this Thesis and that it doesn't apply to the crisis the doctrines of the authorised teachers, which when applied do actually solve all problems. Or at least, they show that whatever problems there are, none of them poses a certain problem for the faith. And that's all a good Catholic needs, of course. The virtue of faith will suffer no diminution unless there appears a truly insoluble problem, assuming always that it is supported as it must be by prayer, acts of faith, etc. (I hasten to add that any apparently insoluble problem would be chimerical, of course, and an essential part of the proper response is always to recall our own frailty and God's inscrutable wisdom - but such a problem would indeed be a terrible trial of faith all the same.)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Oct 15, 2011 3:40 pm
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)
Dear John, interesting post.

John Lane wrote:
In the mind of Guerard des Lauriers the observation that the bishops of the whole world, including the purported Roman Pontiff, were practicing and preaching a new religion, led to the logical problem that the Church as a visible institution had ceased to exist - this because the "ecclesia docens" (the Church teaching) was no longer was active. The Cassiciacum Thesis is his
solution to this problem.


Indeed. It seems to me, and I guess Gabriele will be able to respond better than me, that the sedevacantist thesis should explain at least two things: Apostolicity and electors of a Pope. G. des Lauriers gave an answer to those things.

Quote:
Gabriele has given expression to the fundamental issue by asking whether a bishop who adopted the decrees of Vatican II as the teaching of the Church and introduced the New Mass etc. to his diocese could be said to be a member of the body which we refer to as the Church teaching.


Good question, although a negative answer seems obvious.

Quote:
Likewise the theory of Bishop Sanborn regarding the "una cum" clause in the Mass finds itself up against the same problem - did the Church cease altogether to offer acceptable worship to God for several years during which all priests inserted the name of the heretical non-pope in the Canon of the Mass? Did God "hold His nose" during these years every time Holy Mass was offered?


I guess Bp Sanborn I´d say "yes" to both questions or at least I can´t imagine any other response based on his principles.

Quote:
Now the first thing to do when faced by the Cassiciacum Thesis (precisely because it is novelty, not found in the authorities) is to ask whether it has arisen in service of a genuine need. Not on a pragmatic level, but on a theoretical level. That is, is there a logical doctrinal problem to resolve? Further, is the problem defined correctly, if it exists?


I´ll try to be a little more precise. It seems to me that G. des Lauriers needed to explain 2 things:

a) Since he accepted that formal apostolicity could cease to exist, he needed some sort of succession, otherwise both the election and the appointments made by that elected "Pope" would all be invalid, etc.

b) You also need electors, and that´s why the same theory applies to "material Cardinals" (to name them somehow).

All Sedes have at least to give an answer to these legitimate questions, namely: how to explain the apostolicity of the Church and how to get a Pope. Although I disagree with his theory I must admit that he gave a rather easy explanation and one that is not "improbable" in the sense that it is enough that one Bishop of the world converts to the Catholic faith in order to have a Pope (he should reject completely Vat. II, then admonish BXVI, and proceed to a new election in case BXVI doesn´t convert, etc.).


Quote:
My own reading of the authors is that the term "ecclesia docens" despite the active form being employed, does not mean the Church always actively teaching. It refers to the episcopal college, that is, the successors of the Apostles taken collectively (including the pope) in their teaching role. That's how it is used and it seems apparent that this is its meaning. It means the hierarchy, considered as the official teachers of divine revelation.


This is the way I personally have always understood that term :)

Quote:
So we immediately doubt that the problem definitely exists, and further, we see that whatever problem does exist has not been accurately defined.


Perhaps to the last question, but not sure about the first one. Even granting there are Bishops with jursidiction because they accepted Vat II out of obedience, yet, does this applies to Pius XII´s Bishops (at most until the first years of Paul VI?) or to present appointed Bishops? how about the electors, etc?

Quote:
Yet it would be a misjudgement to assert that all such bishops were manifest heretics. (With those who are addicted to this misjudgement, I have nothing to say. We disagree on fundamental principles, principles which are clearly and unanimously expressed in the Church's theology manuals, and therefore we have insufficient common ground to work upon.) Given that not all of these bishops were manifest heretics, they remained members of the college of bishops, which is to say, they remained successors of the apostles. Their status had not changed.


Agree but if this applies to Piux´s Bishops, then there are but few left according to this website http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html

Quote:
Which brings us to the present discussion. I should not have to point this out, but we're not aiming at any practical end here in terms of identifying what needs to be done to save the Church or ensure her continuity. It's not our role. All that we are doing is discussing the various theoretical problems which arise in the minds of sedevacantists (or potential sedevacantists) so as to provide, if possible, a proven and completely Catholic theoretical framework by which to explain the crisis.


Agree, and a very fascinating study isn´t it? :)

Quote:
In one sense it's an effort to answer those who assert that "sedevacantism is a dead end." (As if sedeplenism were not a dead beginning!)


:lol:

I don´t know, just my thoughts. I guess Gabriele will have something to say also :)

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Sat Oct 15, 2011 6:02 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Well, excuse me Mr. Lane, for writing this shortly after your lengthy and very interesting posting, but:

I believe that the first difficulty which led to the invention of the "thesis" is, how to resolve a the problem of a person obviously occupying the chair of St. Peter cannot be said to be a formal heretic, while in the same time he and the greatest part of the Church departs completely from orthodoxy and orthopraxis. This is the very first question to answer to Mgr. Guerard des Lauriers, or prove that the the post-John XXIII. Popes were indeed formal heretics. It seems to me that Mr. Larrabee tacitly agrees with the premise of a provable formal heresy of the counciliar popes.

Then follows the rather philosophical question of authority as well as papal authority and the determinations of the (elected) candiate.


I know that Bp. Sanborn and others somehow believe in provable formal heresies, but this is not the approach of Guerard des Lauriers.

PS: Excuse me, Cristian, but I did not see your posting earlier. Mgr. des Lauriers never came up with "material Cardinals", it is another innovation of very recent origin.


Sat Oct 15, 2011 6:11 pm
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)
Julian wrote:

PS: Excuse me, Cristian, but I did not see your posting earlier. Mgr. des Lauriers never came up with "material Cardinals", it is another innovation of very recent origin.


Hi Julian, and how did he explain the issue of the electors?

As far as I knew G. des Lauriers (and Fr. Ricossa) taught the materil/formal thesis and Bp. Sanborn made a subdistinction saying the material successors could be "just material" (as in the case of the schismatics) or legal-material (the case of BXVI election and hyerarchy of the novus ordo church), but in any case, the response for the electors is the same isn´t it?

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

Leon Bloy


Sat Oct 15, 2011 6:25 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
John Lane wrote:
Dear Griff, and all,

I've been pondering this and wondering if the whole question is not clear in terms of what is at issue, why the Cassiciacum Thesis exists at all, and why it matters. I'll try and outline the situation.

In the mind of Guerard des Lauriers the observation that the bishops of the whole world, including the purported Roman Pontiff, were practicing and preaching a new religion, led to the logical problem that the Church as a visible institution had ceased to exist - this because the "ecclesia docens" (the Church teaching) was no longer was active. The Cassiciacum Thesis is his solution to this problem. (The Church teaching is distinguished from the Church taught - that is, all of the members of the Church, including the members of the Church teaching, insofar as they also must necessarily submit to the magisterium.)

Gabriele has given expression to the fundamental issue by asking whether a bishop who adopted the decrees of Vatican II as the teaching of the Church and introduced the New Mass etc. to his diocese could be said to be a member of the body which we refer to as the Church teaching.

The same problem arises in other theories of the crisis, including for example the theory that asserts that Vatican II was explicitly heretical and that all who subscribed to it were therefore manifest heretics and no longer members of the Church or of her hierarchy. Likewise the theory of Bishop Sanborn regarding the "una cum" clause in the Mass finds itself up against the same problem - did the Church cease altogether to offer acceptable worship to God for several years during which all priests inserted the name of the heretical non-pope in the Canon of the Mass? Did God "hold His nose" during these years every time Holy Mass was offered? Could the Church exist whilst offering only blasphemous public worship? To ask the question is to answer it. (Although, to one who believes that a merely material succession suffices to maintain the formal apostolicity of the Church, this last theory would possibly pose no difficulty. But don't ask me to explain it!)

Now the first thing to do when faced by the Cassiciacum Thesis (precisely because it is novelty, not found in the authorities) is to ask whether it has arisen in service of a genuine need. Not on a pragmatic level, but on a theoretical level. That is, is there a logical doctrinal problem to resolve? Further, is the problem defined correctly, if it exists?

My own reading of the authors is that the term "ecclesia docens" despite the active form being employed, does not mean the Church always actively teaching. It refers to the episcopal college, that is, the successors of the Apostles taken collectively (including the pope) in their teaching role. That's how it is used and it seems apparent that this is its meaning. It means the hierarchy, considered as the official teachers of divine revelation.

So we immediately doubt that the problem definitely exists, and further, we see that whatever problem does exist has not been accurately defined. We observe in connection with this that there many men who adopted the Vatican II reforms precisely because they felt obliged by the authority of the Church to do so, and in this very motive we see a horrible composition - heterodoxy in thought and practice for a purely orthodox motive. Cardinal Siri is a famous example, and there were many others, including Bishop Stewart of Bendigo and Bishop Thomas of Geraldton in this country. The problem, such as it is, is that these men ceased officially to practice and preach the faith in its integrity, precisely by adopting the New Mass and the new catechisms flowing in the wake of Vatican II. So as far as the bishops were concerned, with notable exceptions such as Bishop de Castro Mayer, the teaching activity of the Church, which finds its principle in the work of the bishops, effectively ceased.

Yet it would be a misjudgement to assert that all such bishops were manifest heretics. (With those who are addicted to this misjudgement, I have nothing to say. We disagree on fundamental principles, principles which are clearly and unanimously expressed in the Church's theology manuals, and therefore we have insufficient common ground to work upon.) Given that not all of these bishops were manifest heretics, they remained members of the college of bishops, which is to say, they remained successors of the apostles. Their status had not changed.

Most bishops did, I believe, disappear into heresy. We're discussing the exceptions.

Sedevacantism, as a school of thought, followed down at least three more or less broad paths from the late 'seventies onwards. The followers of Guerard des Lauriers, the schismatically inclined fanatics, and the remainder who simply insisted that Paul VI (and/or John XXIII) and successors were not true popes. The latter group often do not perceive any urgent problem to be solved. I have a good friend who is a long-standing sedevacantist priest, and an excellent philosopher and theologian, who told me recently that he doesn't feel any need to explain the further consequences of sedevacantism. He's happy to have answered the main question and get on with his work, which is to save souls through the usual priestly mission.

Which brings us to the present discussion. I should not have to point this out, but we're not aiming at any practical end here in terms of identifying what needs to be done to save the Church or ensure her continuity. It's not our role. All that we are doing is discussing the various theoretical problems which arise in the minds of sedevacantists (or potential sedevacantists) so as to provide, if possible, a proven and completely Catholic theoretical framework by which to explain the crisis. In one sense it's an effort to answer those who assert that "sedevacantism is a dead end." (As if sedeplenism were not a dead beginning!)

The practical end which justifies and motivates the effort is to reduce scandal, the scandal of the crisis. That is, we aim to show that the crisis, whilst a fearsome mystery in many respects, does not impinge on divine faith. Or, to put the same thing in different words, we need not be disturbed. Our Lord is apparently asleep in the boat, and the storm will pass when He wills to calm it, which He will inevitably do.

So going back to Griff's first post, and my reaction to it, how does the Thesis get off first base? That is, what's the problem it is meant to solve? And that is where our considerations of the fundamental observation of the Guerardians ("the Church teaching" has otherwise ceased to exist) and our exploration of ways in which the hierarchy will be restored without ever ceasing completely to exist, come from. We are showing that there is no need for this Thesis and that it doesn't apply to the crisis the doctrines of the authorised teachers, which when applied do actually solve all problems. Or at least, they show that whatever problems there are, none of them poses a certain problem for the faith. And that's all a good Catholic needs, of course. The virtue of faith will suffer no diminution unless there appears a truly insoluble problem, assuming always that it is supported as it must be by prayer, acts of faith, etc. (I hasten to add that any apparently insoluble problem would be chimerical, of course, and an essential part of the proper response is always to recall our own frailty and God's inscrutable wisdom - but such a problem would indeed be a terrible trial of faith all the same.)


Dear John,

What a magnificent post! You have synthesized the ideas of dozens of posts and documents into one logical statement. Thank you for that.

I have a thought on this which follows from yours. Some may say, "If such an election were to take place, with remaining hierarchy and Roman Clergy, how could Catholics have certainty that the new Pope is truly the Pope.?" I believe that Our Lady of Fatima gave us the answer. When the Pope in union with the Bishops consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart, Russia will be converted. If the new Pope were to immediately consecrate Russia with the bishops it would fulfill the request of Our Lady of Fatima. This will be the largest public miracle, I think, since the time of Our Lord. Only the Pope has this within his power, and the act has certainly not been done, as least not in union with world's bishops. A public miracle will give certainty to the new Pope, and would unite the Church under him.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sat Oct 15, 2011 10:19 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Julian wrote:
Well, excuse me Mr. Lane, for writing this shortly after your lengthy and very interesting posting, but:

I believe that the first difficulty which led to the invention of the "thesis" is, how to resolve a the problem of a person obviously occupying the chair of St. Peter cannot be said to be a formal heretic, while in the same time he and the greatest part of the Church departs completely from orthodoxy and orthopraxis. This is the very first question to answer to Mgr. Guerard des Lauriers, or prove that the the post-John XXIII. Popes were indeed formal heretics. It seems to me that Mr. Larrabee tacitly agrees with the premise of a provable formal heresy of the counciliar popes.

Then follows the rather philosophical question of authority as well as papal authority and the determinations of the (elected) candiate.


I know that Bp. Sanborn and others somehow believe in provable formal heresies, but this is not the approach of Guerard des Lauriers.

PS: Excuse me, Cristian, but I did not see your posting earlier. Mgr. des Lauriers never came up with "material Cardinals", it is another innovation of very recent origin.


Dear Julian,

Yes, I agree with almost all of this, with the exception of your comment about Bishop Sanborn. I haven't seen evidence that he believes that the Nopes have been provably formal heretics. Can you point me to something please? His work on Canon 188 would seem to indicate the opposite, and strongly so.

On the question of manifest heresy, I wrote the following on the first page of this thread:

John Lane wrote:
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.


"Facts" in that post, as the first part made clear, referred to theological data, not factual data.

I added the speculation, which seems reasonable to me, that Guerard's idea that formal heretics could never be identified without a prior authoritative warning was at the root not just of the Cassiciacum Thesis but also of the SSPX position.

John Lane wrote:
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.


Anyway, I think we see the same facts. Guerard's first question was, is Paul VI really pope? And in common with all sedevacantists, he answered "no" (but proved it using a novel approach). His second question, which begins the Cassiciacum Thesis, is if Paul VI isn't pope, then where is the ecclesia docens?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:21 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Indeed. It seems to me, and I guess Gabriele will be able to respond better than me, that the sedevacantist thesis should explain at least two things: Apostolicity and electors of a Pope.


Yes, for those of us who wish to understand more, this is true, but I'm not sure it must do so in order for a man to reject Paul VI and successors. Simple sedevacantism, if we can call it that, is a perfectly respectable and profoundly Catholic view. We don't have to solve the problems the crisis raises - we didn't cause it. We're only required to ensure our safety and keep the faith.


Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Quote:
Gabriele has given expression to the fundamental issue by asking whether a bishop who adopted the decrees of Vatican II as the teaching of the Church and introduced the New Mass etc. to his diocese could be said to be a member of the body which we refer to as the Church teaching.


Good question, although a negative answer seems obvious.


Yes, but is it, on reflection, the correct answer? It seems to me to turn on the definition of "ecclesia docens". Once this term is understood correctly, the answer to this question is not "no" but "yes, in specific cases" (i.e. those who have retained the faith).

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
a) Since he accepted that formal apostolicity could cease to exist,


I doubt he made that statement. I agree it seems to be a necessary conclusion from his ideas, but surely he never wrote it explicitly! It is manifestly heretical, Cristian, don't you think?

Quote:
All Sedes have at least to give an answer to these legitimate questions, namely: how to explain the apostolicity of the Church and how to get a Pope. Although I disagree with his theory I must admit that he gave a rather easy explanation and one that is not "improbable" in the sense that it is enough that one Bishop of the world converts to the Catholic faith in order to have a Pope (he should reject completely Vat. II, then admonish BXVI, and proceed to a new election in case BXVI doesn´t convert, etc.).


Yes, but only on the hypothesis that the "bishops" involved had not been heretics themselves (Guerard would say they are not heretics because never warned by the Church). Since I disagree with this fundamental point, I can't see that his conclusion stands. Would a hierarchy which came purely from an invalidly consecrated heretic bishop (or bishops) appointed by a manifestly heretical non-pope, be the same hierarchy which existed in 1958? What connects them?

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Perhaps to the last question, but not sure about the first one. Even granting there are Bishops with jursidiction because they accepted Vat II out of obedience, yet, does this applies to Pius XII´s Bishops (at most until the first years of Paul VI?) or to present appointed Bishops?


Well we only need to establish principles and the facts will be the facts. This is why I try to get people to think of this in the past, as we do with the Great Western Schism, and see that whatever the solution, it will be one which can be shown to have obeyed all of the principles taught in the theological and canonical authorities. (And imagine the difficulty for Apologetics if Guerard's theory were to be accepted! This is not an argument, just an observation!)

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
how about the electors, etc?


Do you agree that anybody who has received first tonsure in Rome is a member of the Roman clergy? Do you agree that it is at least possible that some members of the Roman clergy are not manifest heretics even today? Do you think that if a former member of the Roman clergy converted and returned to the Church publicly, he would need some intervening authoritative act prior to being considered again a member of the Roman clergy?

Also, on Canon 209, nobody seems to be able to cite an authority which would suggest that it doesn't apply to the case of a putative pope appointing bishops.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:46 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Mike wrote:
I have a thought on this which follows from yours. Some may say, "If such an election were to take place, with remaining hierarchy and Roman Clergy, how could Catholics have certainty that the new Pope is truly the Pope.?" I believe that Our Lady of Fatima gave us the answer. When the Pope in union with the Bishops consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart, Russia will be converted. If the new Pope were to immediately consecrate Russia with the bishops it would fulfill the request of Our Lady of Fatima. This will be the largest public miracle, I think, since the time of Our Lord. Only the Pope has this within his power, and the act has certainly not been done, as least not in union with world's bishops. A public miracle will give certainty to the new Pope, and would unite the Church under him.


Dear Mike,

Yes, that would do it. It isn't hard to imagine an orthodox man being accepted by the whole Church as pope in circumstances involving a public miracle. Your idea is a great example.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:49 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)
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Indeed. It seems to me, and I guess Gabriele will be able to respond better than me, that the sedevacantist thesis should explain at least two things: Apostolicity and electors of a Pope.


Yes, for those of us who wish to understand more, this is true, but I'm not sure it must do so in order for a man to reject Paul VI and successors. Simple sedevacantism, if we can it that, is a perfectly respectable and profoundly Catholic view. We don't have to solve the problems the crisis raises - we didn't cause it. We're only required to ensure our safety and keep the faith.


Absolutely! We don´t need to have all the answers to reject BXVI and the others, I was just pointing out that if we wish to have a response of this great crisis those topics have to be resolved.


Quote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Quote:
Gabriele has given expression to the fundamental issue by asking whether a bishop who adopted the decrees of Vatican II as the teaching of the Church and introduced the New Mass etc. to his diocese could be said to be a member of the body which we refer to as the Church teaching.


Good question, although a negative answer seems obvious.


Yes, but is it, on reflection, the correct answer? It seems to me to turn on the definition of "ecclesia docens". Once this term is understood correctly, the answer to this question is not "no" but "yes, in specific cases" (i.e. those who have retained the faith).


Ahh yes, that was the sense I understood your sentence :)

Quote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
a) Since he accepted that formal apostolicity could cease to exist,


I doubt he made that statement. I agree it seems to be a necessary conclusion from his ideas, but surely he never wrote it explicitly!


Well when I said "formal apostolicity could cease to exist" I mean in act, and that´s why they say that as long as you have material Bsihops and electors, apostolicity is not cut but may be restored. And that´s why they apply the similarity with the office of the Pope and say that apostolicity may exist "morally" and not necessarily in act.

I was told by more than one guerardian and more than once that there is no bishop with jurisdiction left nowadays.

Quote:
It is manifestly heretical, Cristian, don't you think?


Well the way they present it (legal-material or moral succession) is wrong IMO, but I´d not dare to call it heretical.

Quote:
Quote:
All Sedes have at least to give an answer to these legitimate questions, namely: how to explain the apostolicity of the Church and how to get a Pope. Although I disagree with his theory I must admit that he gave a rather easy explanation and one that is not "improbable" in the sense that it is enough that one Bishop of the world converts to the Catholic faith in order to have a Pope (he should reject completely Vat. II, then admonish BXVI, and proceed to a new election in case BXVI doesn´t convert, etc.).


Yes, but only on the hypothesis that the "bishops" involved had not been heretics themselves (Guerard would say they are not heretics because never warned by the Church). Since I disagree with this fundamental point, I can't see that his conclusion stands.


True. I disagree as well but he is coherent. Since no bishop is formally heretic then he is able to retain the appointment and when he converts then the obex is lifted, etc.

Quote:
Would a hierarchy which came purely from an invalidly consecrated heretic bishop (or bishops) appointed by a manifestly heretical non-pope, be the same hierarchy which existed in 1958? What connects them?


They´d say yes :)


Quote:
Do you agree that anybody who has received first tonsure in Rome is a member of the Roman clergy?


I´m not sure. How do you get incardinated to some diocese? For being cleric of some diocese you need a canonical mission, don´t you? (canon 109 in fine), otherwise it wouldn´t exist the clerici vagi, right? I´m not sure of all this. Just "thinking aloud" as we say here :)

Quote:
Do you agree that it is at least possible that some members of the Roman clergy are not manifest heretics even today?


If you mean one incardinated in the time of Pius XII, I´d say yes, it is possible (although I don´t know if there are any), if you mean someone after Pius XII, I´m not sure he is "roman" clergy (although he is certainly "clergy").

Quote:
Do you think that if a former member of the Roman clergy converted and returned to the Church publicly, he would need some intervening authoritative act prior to being considered again a member of the Roman clergy?


No, I don´t think he´d need any act to be consider member of the Roman clergy.

Quote:
Also, on Canon 209, nobody seems to be able to cite an authority which would suggest that it doesn't apply to the case of a putative pope appointing bishops.


Indeed and this is something I have to study before responding something coherent :)

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

Leon Bloy


Sun Oct 16, 2011 1:55 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
John Lane wrote:
Mike wrote:
I have a thought on this which follows from yours. Some may say, "If such an election were to take place, with remaining hierarchy and Roman Clergy, how could Catholics have certainty that the new Pope is truly the Pope.?" I believe that Our Lady of Fatima gave us the answer. When the Pope in union with the Bishops consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart, Russia will be converted. If the new Pope were to immediately consecrate Russia with the bishops it would fulfill the request of Our Lady of Fatima. This will be the largest public miracle, I think, since the time of Our Lord. Only the Pope has this within his power, and the act has certainly not been done, as least not in union with world's bishops. A public miracle will give certainty to the new Pope, and would unite the Church under him.


Dear Mike,

Yes, that would do it. It isn't hard to imagine an orthodox man being accepted by the whole Church as pope in circumstances involving a public miracle. Your idea is a great example.


Dear John,

I have always believed the message of Fatima is directly tied in with this crisis. I believe you think the same way. It seems to me that everything we are living through was most likely revealed by Our Lady in the Third Secret, and was a warning to the Church. I think Sr. Lucy, in her December 26, 1957 interview with Fr. Fuentes revealed much of what is in the Third Secret, without directly attributing it to that. I will post the interview in the texts section for anyone who wants to read it.

In the end, it seems, that since Our Lady said "in the end her Immaculate Heart will triumph," that the end of this crisis will be the fulfillment of Our Lady's request to the Pope and the bishops. This also seems to me to be tied in with sedevacantism. In the end, this one public act of the unified hierarchy in consecrating Russia and bringing her conversion to the Church will be miraculous and visible. This public act will give certainty to Catholics on who the pope and bishops are.

Also, in the partial text of the third secret released by the Vatican to appease the petitions drives by Fr. Gruner and others, the text states:
Quote:
After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!’. And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels, each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.2
taken from: http://www.fatima.org/essentials/message/tspart3.asp

The vision, which I agree with Fr. Gruner on this, is a portion of the third secret and omits other sections. But, one thing that can give us hope is that this vision has not come to pass, which indicates that we will have a Pope again. The sorrowful part of this is that death, destruction, and martyrdom will be coming for many Catholics including the Pope himself.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:42 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
a) Since he accepted that formal apostolicity could cease to exist,


I doubt he made that statement. I agree it seems to be a necessary conclusion from his ideas, but surely he never wrote it explicitly!


Well when I said "formal apostolicity could cease to exist" I mean in act,


And I think that is heretical. The apostolic succession is not merely material or moral, it is formal and actual. One might as well say that the Church can be disunited in act, as long as the ideal of unity exists in some of her members' thoughts. It's not right.

But I emphasise that I doubt Guerard could ever have actually written that the Church's apostolicity could cease in act. It's the necessary inference of his theory, and it's all he rescues from the "problem" of the Church failing altogether, but he couldn't have written it the way you do (and as Gabriele did on the first page) I think. He was too familiar with scholastic theology to do that. It would have jarred, to say the least.

Quote:
and that´s why they say that as long as you have material Bsihops and electors, apostolicity is not cut but may be restored. And that´s why they apply the similarity with the office of the Pope and say that apostolicity may exist "morally" and not necessarily in act.


Yes, except that the parallel with the perpetuity of the papacy is non-existent. One is a moral perpetuity with gaps in act; the other is a necessary concrete feature of the Church in act at all times.

Quote:
I was told by more than one guerardian and more than once that there is no bishop with jurisdiction left nowadays.


It would be interesting to see what a priori reason they had for that conclusion. Surely they didn't study the lives of all of the 2500 bishops after Vatican II! So the reason had to be a priori. I'm guessing it's the profession, externally at least, of the New Religion.

Quote:
Well the way they present it (legal-material or moral succession) is wrong IMO, but I´d not dare to call it heretical.


Yes, the way Guerard and Sanborn presented it. I agree with you.

Quote:
True. I disagree as well but he is coherent. Since no bishop is formally heretic then he is able to retain the appointment and when he converts then the obex is lifted, etc.


Yes but if you abandon the tradition of the Church regarding membership and jurisdiction, what possible basis could you have for the loss of jurisdiction by the bishops? The obex spoken of in relation to the papacy is an obstacle to the reception of jurisdiction, it does not explain how jurisdiction already possessed can be lost. And I repeat, there's nothing in the tradition of the Church to support any other view than that heresy, schism, apostasy (entailing loss of membership) result in the loss of an office.

It's as though the first error (no heretics without warnings) leads to an entire new ecclesiology, affecting the definition of membership, the requirements for valid possession of an office, the definition of apostolicity, etc. It recalls the old scholastic favorite, a small error in the beginning leads to great error in the end.

Quote:
Do you agree that anybody who has received first tonsure in Rome is a member of the Roman clergy?


Cristian Jacobo wrote:
I´m not sure. How do you get incardinated to some diocese? For being cleric of some diocese you need a canonical mission, don´t you? (canon 109 in fine), otherwise it wouldn´t exist the clerici vagi, right?


The first tonsure is the incardination, I believe. That's the sign that you're now a cleric and you belong to the diocese.

Quote:
Do you agree that it is at least possible that some members of the Roman clergy are not manifest heretics even today?


Cristian Jacobo wrote:
If you mean one incardinated in the time of Pius XII, I´d say yes, it is possible (although I don´t know if there are any), if you mean someone after Pius XII, I´m not sure he is "roman" clergy (although he is certainly "clergy").


Once again, you face the problem of describing what happened to the diocese of Rome after 1958 to make it cease being the diocese of Rome. The local Church of Rome is indefectible, remember.

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
No, I don´t think he´d need any act to be consider member of the Roman clergy.


Well he'd need an act sufficiently public to overthrow the public fact of his heresy or apostasy.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Oct 16, 2011 5:47 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
John Lane wrote:
Yes, I agree with almost all of this, with the exception of your comment about Bishop Sanborn. I haven't seen evidence that he believes that the Nopes have been provably formal heretics. Can you point me to something please? His work on Canon 188 would seem to indicate the opposite, and strongly so.


Unfortunately I don´t have my library here and this observation is partly based on personal conversation with Bishop Sanborn.

But this could give a little hint, in his treatise on the una cum problem:

Quote:
I respond to this objection in the following manner: (1) there is strong evidence that he is formal in his adherence to heresy; (2) the law of the Church presumes guilt (i.e., formality) in the public profession of heresy until the contrary be proven; (3) it is the practice of the Church to treat all those who publicly adhere to heresy as formal heretics in the external forum, whether or not, in the internal forum, they be morally guilty of their heresy; (4) to recognize John Paul II as a member of the Catholic Church ruins the theological basis of resistance to the changes.



And of course you are completely right in saying that the incardination takes place with First Tonsure.

Still, I maintain that those who made the thesis did not do this in disrespect to tradition and scholastic authority, but precisely because they did not find the available answers applicable to our current situation. And, after all, reasoning has a big part in the constitution of true theology, not merely quoting. Then, of course, we all are no theologians!


Sun Oct 16, 2011 7:25 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)
John Lane wrote:
Quote:
I doubt he made that statement. I agree it seems to be a necessary conclusion from his ideas, but surely he never wrote it explicitly!


Well when I said "formal apostolicity could cease to exist" I mean in act,


Quote:
The apostolic succession is not merely material or moral, it is formal and actual. One might as well say that the Church can be disunited in act, as long as the ideal of unity exists in some of her members' thoughts. It's not right.


Agreed.

Quote:
But I emphasise that I doubt Guerard could ever have actually written that the Church's apostolicity could cease in act. It's the necessary inference of his theory, and it's all he rescues from the "problem" of the Church failing altogether, but he couldn't have written it the way you do (and as Gabriele did on the first page) I think. He was too familiar with scholastic theology to do that. It would have jarred, to say the least.


I don´t know I still have to be convinced that he was a good theologian. I mean he is far, very far from being clear when he writes and he seldom quotes any theologian.

Regarding the promise "Ecce Ego vobiscum sum" he says that "it is subordinated to the general conditions of salvation" (whatever that means!) and then he says that "it may be accidentally refused" (again, whatever that means!) Cahiers I, page 89)

Not to say about some really weird things such as when he said for 3 or 4 times in the same page that at the time when Our Lady was pregnant She was merely the fiancée of St Joseph and not Her Spouse! (page 86)


Quote:
Quote:
and that´s why they say that as long as you have material Bishops and electors, apostolicity is not cut but may be restored. And that´s why they apply the similarity with the office of the Pope and say that apostolicity may exist "morally" and not necessarily in act.


Yes, except that the parallel with the perpetuity of the papacy is non-existent. One is a moral perpetuity with gaps in act; the other is a necessary concrete feature of the Church in act at all times.


I agree.

Quote:
Quote:
I was told by more than one guerardian and more than once that there is no bishop with jurisdiction left nowadays.


It would be interesting to see what a priori reason they had for that conclusion. Surely they didn't study the lives of all of the 2500 bishops after Vatican II! So the reason had to be a priori. I'm guessing it's the profession, externally at least, of the New Religion.


They say it is just a fact.

Quote:
Quote:
True. I disagree as well but he is coherent. Since no bishop is formally heretic then he is able to retain the appointment and when he converts then the obex is lifted, etc.


Yes but if you abandon the tradition of the Church regarding membership and jurisdiction, what possible basis could you have for the loss of jurisdiction by the bishops? The obex spoken of in relation to the papacy is an obstacle to the reception of jurisdiction, it does not explain how jurisdiction already possessed can be lost. And I repeat, there's nothing in the tradition of the Church to support any other view than that heresy, schism, apostasy (entailing loss of membership) result in the loss of an office.


I totally agree with you. It would be good if the defendants of des Lauriers could try to respond to this :)

Quote:
It's as though the first error (no heretics without warnings) leads to an entire new ecclesiology, affecting the definition of membership, the requirements for valid possession of an office, the definition of apostolicity, etc. It recalls the old scholastic favorite, a small error in the beginning leads to great error in the end.


Yes! :)

Quote:
Quote:
Do you agree that anybody who has received first tonsure in Rome is a member of the Roman clergy?


Cristian Jacobo wrote:
I´m not sure. How do you get incardinated to some diocese? For being cleric of some diocese you need a canonical mission, don´t you? (canon 109 in fine), otherwise it wouldn´t exist the clerici vagi, right?


The first tonsure is the incardination, I believe. That's the sign that you're now a cleric and you belong to the diocese.


I´m not sure. By first tonsure you enter the clerical state, but I think that in order to be incardinated to some diocese you need to be called by the Bishop. Otherwise if I go to Rome and got first tonsure by any traditional Bishop, would that mean I belong to the Roman clergy?
And what about the clerici vagi? They are clergy and yet they are not incardinated to any diocese.


Quote:
Quote:
Do you agree that it is at least possible that some members of the Roman clergy are not manifest heretics even today?


Cristian Jacobo wrote:
If you mean one incardinated in the time of Pius XII, I´d say yes, it is possible (although I don´t know if there are any), if you mean someone after Pius XII, I´m not sure he is "roman" clergy (although he is certainly "clergy").


Once again, you face the problem of describing what happened to the diocese of Rome after 1958 to make it cease being the diocese of Rome. The local Church of Rome is indefectible, remember.


Yes, I know this is a problem :) and I don´t know exactly how to respond to it.

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

Leon Bloy


Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:23 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Julian wrote:
But this could give a little hint, in his treatise on the una cum problem:

Quote:
I respond to this objection in the following manner: (1) there is strong evidence that he is formal in his adherence to heresy; (2) the law of the Church presumes guilt (i.e., formality) in the public profession of heresy until the contrary be proven; (3) it is the practice of the Church to treat all those who publicly adhere to heresy as formal heretics in the external forum, whether or not, in the internal forum, they be morally guilty of their heresy; (4) to recognize John Paul II as a member of the Catholic Church ruins the theological basis of resistance to the changes.


What he appears to be saying is that it isn't provable but we can rely on a presumption. This may or not be sound thinking (it depends on what he actually means, in my view) but I agree that Bp. Sanborn at least mentions heresy and appears to desire that his readers think of Montini as a heretic.


Quote:
Still, I maintain that those who made the thesis did not do this in disrespect to tradition and scholastic authority, but precisely because they did not find the available answers applicable to our current situation. And, after all, reasoning has a big part in the constitution of true theology, not merely quoting. Then, of course, we all are no theologians!


Yes, understood. The comment about contempt for the authorities is meant to be an objective one. I have made it clear that I have high respect for the integrity and even holiness of Guerard and the priests I've met or corresponded with who follow him. In many ways they are the best priests we have.

For other readers, you should perhaps know that in Europe sedevacantism and Guerardianism are almost co-extensive. To many, "sedevacantism" means the theory of Guerard.

Also, since the leading sedevacantist priests are generally Guerardians, the kind of thing I have written here against it and against Guerard's approach would be nothing short of shocking to the laity there. They would be prepared to concede the possibility that Guerard was mistaken - they would find it inconceivable that he was a bad theologian who made up a new ecclesiology, precisely because he didn't follow the approved writers (i.e. his method was bad).

I make this point so that non-European readers understand quite how generous Gabriele (and Julian) has been in responding at all. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:51 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
I´m not sure. By first tonsure you enter the clerical state, but I think that in order to be incardinated to some diocese you need to be called by the Bishop. Otherwise if I go to Rome and got first tonsure by any traditional Bishop, would that mean I belong to the Roman clergy?
And what about the clerici vagi? They are clergy and yet they are not incardinated to any diocese.


But this is a question of fact. You have to be tonsured by somebody. Someone has to hold the scissors, Cristian. We're not talking about a vagus. We are talking about somebody tonsured in Rome, by a member of the diocese, as part of the ceremony by which a new cleric is incardinated.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:54 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Did anybody else notice the Introit for yesterday's Mass? "Give peace, O Lord, to them that patiently wait for thee, that thy prophets may be found faithful..." Prophets means "teachers" so it's primarily a reference to bishops (and this Mass incorporates an ancient Mass of Ordination). It reminded me of this current discussion. We certainly need patience whilst we await the restoration of the hierarchy!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:18 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)
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
I´m not sure. By first tonsure you enter the clerical state, but I think that in order to be incardinated to some diocese you need to be called by the Bishop. Otherwise if I go to Rome and got first tonsure by any traditional Bishop, would that mean I belong to the Roman clergy?
And what about the clerici vagi? They are clergy and yet they are not incardinated to any diocese.


But this is a question of fact. You have to be tonsured by somebody. Someone has to hold the scissors, Cristian. We're not talking about a vagus. We are talking about somebody tonsured in Rome, by a member of the diocese, as part of the ceremony by which a new cleric is incardinated.


Yes, but how do you become a member of a diocese? If you are layman because of the domicile, if you are clergy because of the tonsure plus the missio canonica, or not?

I admit I have to study all this and I´m still owing you another response... so I better study and then write :)

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

Leon Bloy


Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:42 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Mike wrote:
I have always believed the message of Fatima is directly tied in with this crisis. I believe you think the same way. It seems to me that everything we are living through was most likely revealed by Our Lady in the Third Secret, and was a warning to the Church.


Certainly at least that there would be a crisis of faith and mass apostasy, Mike, I agree. It also seems apparent that there is a reference to the apostasy coming from Rome itself and the bishops generally.

You're quite right that I think Fatima is highly relevant to the present situation, and tied up with its resolution too. But I really can't claim great and detailed knowledge of it.

I did find the controversy over the "third secret" very interesting, particularly the testimony of Archbishop Capovilla. http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr86/cr86pg35.asp (Most of this stuff on Fatima isn't well written. One gets the distinct impression of amateurism. What would be really good is a more grounded and cool writer presenting only facts and the proofs of each of them, in order.)

Re. Capovilla's testimony: http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/09 ... ration.asp

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:46 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Quote:
I did find the controversy over the "third secret" very interesting, particularly the testimony of Archbishop Capovilla. http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr86/cr86pg35.asp (Most of this stuff on Fatima isn't well written. One gets the distinct impression of amateurism. What would be really good is a more grounded and cool writer presenting only facts and the proofs of each of them, in order.)


There was a very good article written some years back by Andrew Cesanek about the Third Secret controversy. I will find it and post it on a new thread, so as to not distract from this one dealing with Msgr. Guerard's theory.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:12 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Quote:

Yes, but how do you become a member of a diocese? If you are layman because of the domicile, if you are clergy because of the tonsure plus the missio canonica, or not?

I admit I have to study all this and I´m still owing you another response... so I better study and then write :)


Cristian,

This is from: A Commentary of the New Code of Canon Law, Rev. Charles Augustine, O.S.B. D.D., Volume II, Clergy and Hierarchy, 1918, p. 51. Digitized text: http://books.google.com/books?id=VAIUAA ... on&f=false

Quote:
A cleric becomes incardinated in a diocese or religious community at the moment when he receives the first tonsure* because at that moment he enters the clerical state, which, though in abstracto it signifies the sacred ministry in general, yet in concreto means that part of the Church which is assigned for a cleric's activity. The phrase, " to the diocese to which he is promoted," includes not only the titulus senitii, but any title on which one is ordained. For § 1 simply forbids vagrant clerics.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:52 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
John Lane wrote:
For other readers, you should perhaps know that in Europe sedevacantism and Guerardianism are almost co-extensive. To many, "sedevacantism" means the theory of Guerard.

Also, since the leading sedevacantist priests are generally Guerardians, the kind of thing I have written here against it and against Guerard's approach would be nothing short of shocking to the laity there. They would be prepared to concede the possibility that Guerard was mistaken - they would find it inconceivable that he was a bad theologian who made up a new ecclesiology, precisely because he didn't follow the approved writers (i.e. his method was bad).



I don´t think that this is entirely accurate. While the IMBC has a almost absolute control of the (tiny) sedevacantist movement in Italy and big influence in France, there are probably nearly still as many independent "sedevacantist simpliciter" priests around. Not being part of an organization, hardly any publications and the rather secretive attitude may add to the impression of Guerardian dominance.
Usually, both camps are in fierce opposition. As a known "non-Guerardian", you will have a hard time in a IMBC chapel. On the other side, you might be called a heretic for following the thesis.

Personally, I also was strongly opposed to the thesis in earlier years. I also had very bad experiences with Guerardian priests. So, in the end I came to the conclusion, that both sides are equally good or bad and sound theology is hard to find :wink:


Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:57 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Thank you for the correction, Julian. Much appreciated.

I had no idea that there was any real friction between Guerardians and non-Guerardians. And I'm just as surprised to hear that the Guerardians treated anybody badly. I certainly found Fr. Belmont and Fr. Ricossa to be charming, friendly, accommodating and urbane. So much so that in any fight I'd be powerfully drawn to their defence.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:16 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
John Lane wrote:
Thank you for the correction, Julian. Much appreciated.

I had no idea that there was any real friction between Guerardians and non-Guerardians. And I'm just as surprised to hear that the Guerardians treated anybody badly. I certainly found Fr. Belmont and Fr. Ricossa to be charming, friendly, accommodating and urbane. So much so that in any fight I'd be powerfully drawn to their defence.


Indeed, there is a lot of animosity between those two camps. Of course, some are more lenient than others. According to my knowledge, the IMBC seminary in Verrua-Savoia does not accept anybody who does not agree with Guerard. In MHT-Seminary, the sedevancantist totaliter thesis is only "tolerated", while there is certainly emphasis on convincing the seminarians about the truth of this position.

But I definitely don´t want to use this medium to badmouth any Catholic clergymen. Still, the general situation is probably more complicated than it looks like from afar.


Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:01 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Julian wrote:
Indeed, there is a lot of animosity between those two camps. Of course, some are more lenient than others. According to my knowledge, the IMBC seminary in Verrua-Savoia does not accept anybody who does not agree with Guerard. In MHT-Seminary, the sedevancantist totaliter thesis is only "tolerated", while there is certainly emphasis on convincing the seminarians about the truth of this position.


Well I see nothing wrong with only accepting seminarians who hold a particular view. These seminaries are private institutions and can make whatever rules they see as useful and good.

Julian wrote:
But I definitely don´t want to use this medium to badmouth any Catholic clergymen. Still, the general situation is probably more complicated than it looks like from afar.


Sure, and I'm not suggesting you bad-mouth anybody! My point was to let others know that attacking the Guerardian position with anything but a very tentative and provisional approach is likely to shock European laymen (obviously not those who violently disagree with his view already!).

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:12 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Dear Gabriele,

Ken has now provided me with a translation of Fr. Ricossa's article. I'll make some comments.

Quote:
In fact, in a strictly sedevacantist position, one does not see where there are resident Catholic bishops who can and will elect the Pope, since all the resident bishops (and other prelates who would have jurisdiction) either have been appointed invalidly by antipopes or are otherwise formally heretics and outside the Church – adhering to the errors of Vatican II – or are in any case in communion with John Paul II, head of the new “Conciliar Church”. In short, the Church hierarchy would be totally missing, not just de facto and formally, but also de jure and materially.

Fr. Ricossa makes three arguments. First, the invalidity of appointments by antipopes, I distinguish. That antipopes do not possess the habitual jurisdiction by which true popes appoint inferiors to offices, I concede. That antipopes cannot validly appoint anybody to an office in virtue of supplied jurisdiction in common error, I deny. Second, that most of the bishops of the New Church are open heretics. I concede. Third, that the remainder of the bishops of the New Church are in any case "in communion with John Paul II" I distinguish - verbally in communion, I concede. Really, that is, formally in communion, I challenge Fr. Ricossa or anybody else to prove that this is universally true.

Therefore the conclusion is denied.

Quote:
For a stronger reason, excluded from the ranks of electors – precisely because they are excluded from the general Council – are Bishops consecrated without Roman mandate in exceptional conditions of actual (formal) vacancy of the Holy See. These Bishops, in fact, have been validly consecrated and even, in our opinion – at least in some cases – licitly; however they are though – in the strongest terms – deprived of jurisdiction as the jurisdiction of the Bishop comes from God only through the mediation of the Pope who, in our case, is excluded.

In the case of the existing traditional bishops, I concede. In the case of a bishop chosen (i.e. elected) by the clergy of a diocese in accord with the canons of that diocese and with a view to future confirmation by the pope (i.e. following the custom of the early Church) I deny. I say that such a bishop - as Archbishop Lefebvre envisaged in the case of Campos - would possess true habitual jurisdiction deriving from the pope who established the diocese. I am not aware of any such cases, however the theoretical possibility must be recognised.

Quote:
Since they lack jurisdiction, they do not belong to the Hierarchy of the Church by jurisdiction, are therefore not lawful members of the Council and therefore are not entitled to validly elect the Pope, even in extraordinary cases.

I concede (in relation to the existing traditional bishops).

Quote:
This point of doctrine, already established in itself, is confirmed by the practical impossibility of certainly electing a Pope and without any doubt following this path. Who will establish in a certain manner, among the many Bishops who have been and will still be consecrated in this manner, those who are entitled to participate in the election and those who are not? Who has the right to convene the Conclave and who does not? Who is considered to be legitimately consecrated and who is not? As there is no criterion of discernment (the Roman mandate, the residential see) there is in itself no limit to these consecrations neither on the part of those who can authorize them (the Pope) nor on the part of the amount of territory to govern (the dioceses). The number of electors can then grow out of control with no guarantee of their Catholicity, as was the case in practice.

This is a surprising argument from one as learned as Fr. Ricossa. The history of the Great Western Schism is sufficient evidence that the practical difficulty is irrelevant. Countless unlawful electors - certainly the vast majority of those who cast a vote - participated in the conclave which elected Martin V (i.e at the imperfect general council that was the first part of Constance). As long as the real electors participate, and the Church accepts the result, the election is valid.

Quote:
In regards to every ecclesiastical election, Canone 166 stipulates that “if the laity, against canonical freedom, interfered in any way with an ecclesiastical election, the election is invalid by the same law” (Si laici contra canonicam libertatem electioni ecclesiasticæ quoque modo sese immiscuerint, electio ipso iure invalida est). ... The same Code reters to Corpus iuris canonici (the ancient ecclesiastical law) where the Decretals of Gregory IX (Book I, Title VI, de electione et electi potestate) provide for the invalidity of elections done by the laity: Chap. 43 cites the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 (Costitution XXV: “Anyone who consented to his own election carried out wrongfully by secular power, against canonical freedom, loses the election and becomes ineligible …”); Chap. 56 cites a document by Gregory IX of 1226 by which he declares invalid the election of a bishop done by laity and canons, by an old tradition which is fairly called a “corruption”.
We can cite other ecclesiastical documents for this purpose, among the various Ecumenical Councils...

If this is an argument, it is wrong. That laymen cannot participate in a papal (or any other ecclesiastical) election, I concede. If laymen participate, against the law, in a papal election, the result is doubtful or invalid for this reason, I deny. Fr. Ricossa appears to be suggesting that lay interference could invalidate a papal election. The idea is contrary to the actual history of the Church and against the explicit provisions of the constitutions and other modern papal documents he cites, Vacante Sede Apostolica etc. His historical examples prove nothing, except that the law has varied at different times. Divine law has not changed (as Constance proved).

Quote:
As we have wondered about “universal Church”, so we have to ask ourselves who are the members of the “Roman Church” who could elect the Pope without the cardinals, who are the core members of the Roman Church. Cajetan explains (n° 202): that the election is for such and such a deacon or priest of the Roman churches, said Cardinals, and not to the others (such as for example the canons of St. Peter or St. John Lateran), or this or that other suburbicarian Bishop, and not to others, is available by positive church law, and not by divine law. The Church cannot change these dispositions of church law (n° 202), but in case of death of all the Cardinals it can be assumed that the other members of the Roman clergy could elect their own Bishop. It is clear that to be members of the Roman clergy it is not enough to be born or residing in Rome! They should be incardinated the dioceses and probably have pastoral care of the Roman people and the nearby dioceses. It is easy to understand that even in this case one cannot see who could ever, actually, be able or willing to elect the pope given that the Roman clergy (priests, neighboring bishops, etc.) is currently in communion with John Paul II.

This is all sound theology (although I reserve agreement on the idea that only those clerics who have jurisdiction in Rome can elect - I don't see that in the authorities). The conclusion does not follow - nor is it strongly expressed by Fr. Ricossa, who realises that in this case he has not proved anything in principle which will aid his case. Quite the contrary. He has shown that the junior Roman clergy can elect, and the problem is that at present none of them is willing to do so. God can change wills when His appointed time arrives.

Fr. Ricossa's mission in this article, I remind you, is to prove that a valid papal election is impossible unless the Guerardian thesis is accepted. With this argument he has shown merely that a valid papal election is not yet happening because the Roman clergy are unwilling. With opponents like this, we need no friends. :)

Quote:
Msgr. M.-L. Guérard des Lauriers, in his interview with Sodalitium (n. 13, p. 20) affirmed regarding strict sedevacantism: “The physical or moral person who has, in the Church, the qualities to declare the total vacancy of the Apostolic See is the same as that which, in the Church, has the qualities to provide for the provision of the same Holy See..."

This is pure Cajetan, and has been explicitly and convincingly refuted by Bellarmine. "The example of the electors, who have the power to designate a certain person for the pontificate, without however having power over the Pope, given by Cajetan, is also destitute of value. For when something is being made, the action is exercised over the matter of the future thing, and not over the composite, which does not yet exist, but when a thing is destroyed, the action is exercised over the composite, as becomes patent on consideration of the things of nature. Therefore, on creating the Pontiff, the Cardinals do not exercise their authority over the Pontiff for he does not yet exist, but over the matter, that is, over the person who by the election becomes disposed to receive the pontificate from God. But if they deposed the Pontiff, they would necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person endowed with the pontifical power, that is, over the Pontiff." See: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/bellarm.htm

I'll take this opportunity to highlight the fact that there is evident here an inexplicable disproportionate respect for Cajetan. He was a truly great theologian, all will agree, yet on the very points here and elsewhere cited by Guerard and Ricossa he is refuted by Bellarmine, and it was Bellarmine that Providence chose to be declared Doctor of the Universal Church. Why would one choose to believe Cajetan over Bellarmine? This is impossible to understand.

Quote:
Besides the factual unlikelihood of such an event, highlighted by the two exclamation marks written by Msgr. Guérard after having exposed this hypothesis, it seems to me that Msgr. Sanborn has correctly rebutted the theological possibility of this hypothesis: “Complete sedevacantists propose a second solution to the current crisis: Christ Himself will choose a successor, via a miraculous intervention. If Our Lord were to act in this way, and certainly He could, the man whom he would choose to be Pope would certainly be His vicar on earth, but would not be the successor of St. Peter. Apostolicity would disappear, because this man could not ascend to St. Peter’s through a legitimate unbroken line of succession. Certainly, Peter was chosen by Christ. But in reality Our Lord would be creating a new Church.

This is exactly correct.

Quote:
On the other hand, from the strict sedevacantist perspective, there would no longer exist cardinals or resident Catholic Bishops, as all the existing ones have joined the “conciliar Church”, becoming formal heretics.

This I deny, as it has never been demonstrated either by the "strict sedevacantists" who are accused of believing it, or by the Guerardians who assume it as the basis of their own theory.

Quote:
According to this Thesis, in the current situation of authority in the Church, the power to elect the Supreme Pontiff exists still in the Church not actually or formally, but potentially or materially, and this is sufficient to assure the continuity of Apostolic Succession and to guarantee the indefectibility of the Church.

This is bad terminology indicating unclear and inaccurate thought. Because it is a power, the power to elect a pope is precisely a potentia. But it is always "merely" a potentia. In the present circumstances this power is essentially no different from what it always is, and cannot be otherwise. It exists because valid electors exist, and must exist, because they are necessary to the constitution of the Church. If valid electors do not exist, concretely, at every moment of the Church's existence, then the Church has failed. This what the authorities say, and there is no escaping this fact. If one finds that one's theory of the crisis contradicts this dogmatic truth, then one is obliged to alter one's theory of the crisis.

Quote:
According to the Thesis, in fact, the Cardinals created by the materialiter “popes” retain the power to elect the Pope, and the Bishops, appointed by the materialiter “popes” to their various Episcopal sees, occupy them materially and could, by returning to the public and entire profession of the Faith, be electors of the Pope in the absence of the Cardinals.

This is the "addition" to the Thesis made by Bishop Sanborn. I seriously doubt that Guerard would have accepted it. It posits a "material" pope possessing the formal authority to appoint men to ecclesiastical offices. Is this anything more than an oxymoron?

Quote:
On the other hand, it is emphasized how this opinion is founded on the fact that it is impossible for the whole Church follows a false rule of faith adhering to a false pontiff: this would contradict the Church’s indefectibility. Now, in our case, among those who recognize the legitimacy of Paul VI and John Paul II, there are many who do not adhere to the innovations of Vatican II, and they, in fact, do not recognize Paul VI and John Paul II as a rule of faith and therefore, always in fact, do not recognize their legitimacy. In short, the fact that many Catholics, implicitly and explicitly, have not accepted Vatican II, ties in to the thesis of the peaceful acceptance of the Church, demonstrated in regard to the legitimacy of who promulgated the Council.

This is a good argument, I believe.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:27 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 Cristian,
sorry for my absence. I go straight to the main point of our discussion.

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Quote:
Certe non solum indefectibillitas in credendo (infallibilitatem passivam dicunt) sed etiam infallibilitas in praedicando veritatem revelatam et iam sufficienter pro fide catholica propositam manet in Ecclesia,etiam dum interim suo capite visibili orbata est, ut nec totum corpus Ecclesiae credendo nec totus Episcopatus docendo a fide tradita deficere et in haeresim delabi possit, quia talis permanentia Spiritus veritatis in Ecclesia, regno et sponsa et corpore Christi, comprehenditur in ipsa promissione et institutione indefectibilitatis Ecclesiae omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi


Translation: "In fact it remains in the Church not only the indefectibility in credendo (passive, as they say) but also the infallibility in teaching the revealed truth and already sufficiently proposed as of Catholic faith, even while during the interim her visible head is deprived of her, in such a way that neither the whole body of the Church while believing, nor the whole Episcopal body while teaching, may fall from the faith already handed down and to fall into heresy, because the continuance of the Spirit of truth (the Holy Ghost) in the Church, kingdom and spouse and body of Christ, is comprehended in the very promise and institution of the indefectibility of the Church all days until the end"

I think Franzelin is quite clear, isn´t he?


Franzelin is clear. Previously, I had read his words on the surface.
According to him the Episcopacy must always (in act) repeat (hence rightly his infallibility) what was already taught by the Church as Catholic Faith.
I think that here Franzelin is wrong.
Personally I do not know any bishop (with jurisdiction, obiously!) who currently profess the Catholic faith integrally. If so, Franzelin is belied by the facts. But maybe you know some bishops with jurisdiction who profess integrally the Catholic Faith. Please, indicate to me them!



Cristian Jacobo wrote:
1)May the Church lose the power to elect the Pope …?


I believe no.


Cristian Jacobo wrote:
or to use it in a wrong way?


In the sense that the Church may elect the wrong person? I think yes.


Cristian Jacobo wrote:
2) You still have to prove the magisterium is fallible.


See my answer about Franzelin.


Cristian Jacobo wrote:
3)When I say the Church is infallible while there is no Pope I mean to keep what was already defined and not to define something new, which I think it was your point.


The distinction is correct. Anyone who believes or teaches what the Church has taught is infallible.

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
4) How do you explain the words of Our Lord "omnibus diebus?"



Thinking that Our Lord will always be with His Church and that He will never abandon Her. The idea of continuity is expressed in the (First) Vatican Council, for example, as follow: "... this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error". And then: " This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred…". His apostles today are presents only “materially”.





Cristian Jacobo wrote:
[quote=”Gabriele”]Does this mean rupture? Does it mean “defectibility” of the Church for the lack of its infallible magisterium? No, of course. In saying that the Holy Church is indefectible (under the aspect of the infallible magisterium) we do not say that, also when there is not the Pope (sede vacante), the episcopacy may guarantee an infallible magisterium.

If during the sede vacante the Church is not infallible, it means it is fallible, and if it is fallible it may defects and therefore it is not indefectible :)


I am not a theologian, but it seems to me that the good theology distinguishes between positive infallibility (teach the Catholic Faith) and negative infallibility (accept what the Church teaches). During the sede vacante the Church has not the positive infallibility but She maintains the negative infallibility.


Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:13 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,
Please, sorry for my absence.

John Lane wrote:
Dear Gabriele,

Your English term is quite exact - we say "the Church teaching" also. It's a reasonable point. My own thinking on this is based upon examples such as Cardinal Siri and Bishop de Castro Mayer, and Archbishop Lefebvre for that matter.

Certainly Bishop de Castro Mayer was Bishop of Campos until he died, in 1991. On the same argument (lack of a lawful superior to accept his resignation) Archbishop Lefebvre remained Bishop of Tulle until he died in 1991 also. (Technically, their dioceses would have been rendered "embarrassed" by their "retirements"). The question would return to men like Siri, who retained the faith and professed it personally, but who permitted the "reforms" of Vatican II to be introduced into their dioceses. After "retirement", would a man like that who retained ordinary jurisdiction (for the same reason that Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer retained it) be considered as a constituent part of the Church teaching (ecclesia docens)?

It seems to me that it isn't necessary for a man to be a constituent part of the ecclesia docens to be always and at all times actually teaching. If he remains a Catholic, and therefore retains his jurisdiction, then he is by the very fact a member of the hierarchy. The fact that he is not actively teaching does not appear to me to be an essential problem. I understand if you don't agree with this, of course, however I invite you to explain why.


They were great men of the Church, but now they are all dead.

John Lane wrote:
The other factor to keep in mind is that parochial appointments are essentially a means of granting permanent delegated jurisdiction. An essential part of this for our purposes is that parish priests thereby participate, as delegates of the bishop, in his office of teaching. Now, if a priest remains in his office who was appointed by a real ordinary, then he continues to preach on that ordinary's behalf, and in this way the ordinary continues to exercise his active office of preaching the faith. Fr. Oswald Baker of England was appointed to his parish prior to Vatican II and only died a few years ago, so it seems to me that a case of a Catholic priest ordained under the old rite and appointed to a parish by an ordinary validly appointed by Paul VI could still be in possession of his office today.


The problem is that a priest is not a member of the ecclesia docens.
I remember that long time ago a priest told me of the existence of an old Gallican error (parochialism?) for which the simple priests were considered part of the Church teaching...

John Lane wrote:
Anyway, these are only possibilities. The whole situation is a great mystery and we won't have all the answers until Judgement Day, even if we have some of them a little earlier. :)


Exactly, John. The actual situation is a great mystery. Only one day we will understand. Nevertheless it is important to understand, for every faithful, where is the Church teaching, the hierarchical Church today. Otherwise, in seeing the disappearence of this essential part of the Church, a man may lose the faith. The indefectibility of the Church is a truth of faith. If this truth of faith falls, it falls all the faith.


Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:24 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Gabriele wrote:
Please, sorry for my absence.

Well to be honest, I was missing you. How did you know? :)

Quote:
They were great men of the Church, but now they are all dead.

Yes, but I'm only using them to illustrate principles. I think they retained ordinary jurisdiction until death. If in their case, then why not in the case of a "retired" bishop who is personally orthodox yet went along with Vatican II? (i.e. like Siri, but not yet dead).

Quote:
The problem is that a priest is not a member of the ecclesia docens.
I remember that long time ago a priest told me of the existence of an old Gallican error (parochialism?) for which the simple priests were considered part of the Church teaching...

Absolutely, I agree. My point is that such a priest as I describe is actively teaching on behalf of his retired bishop who still has jurisdiction. This is not necessarily important, I am pointing this out to show that even on the hypothesis that the "ecclesia docens" means that the hierarchy must always not just exist but be actively teaching, then my scenario of a retired bishop and an active priest appointed to a parish by him fulfills that definition. The bishop is actively teaching - through his priest, who is his delegate.

Quote:
Exactly, John. The actual situation is a great mystery. Only one day we will understand. Nevertheless it is important to understand, for every faithful, where is the Church teaching, the hierarchical Church today. Otherwise, in seeing the disappearence of this essential part of the Church, a man may lose the faith. The indefectibility of the Church is a truth of faith. If this truth of faith falls, it falls all the faith.

And you understand that to my mind a merely "material" continuity cannot mean anything but "formal" interruption, and that is the end of the Church.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Oct 18, 2011 12:27 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 144 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 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.