It is currently Sun Feb 23, 2020 1:01 pm




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

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Sigh....well....I see I have an AWFUL lot of reading to do in order to catch up...

Also, our translation of Fr. Ricossa's article still needs some polishing. I'll work on that this week.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Oct 18, 2011 12:54 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:
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!


Gabriele,

A thought I have about what you have said is that your idea seems to be that if we do not personally know a bishop with jurisdiction, that they do not exist. This is a dangerous assumption. I have some thoughts about your comments in this thread.

1. The Church's teaching on Apostolicity states that the hierarchy is essential to the Church and will continue until the end of the world. (see numerous approved sources on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=984 )
2. The logical conclusion from the teaching on Apostolicity of the Church, is that in our current crisis, the hierarchy is still present in the world.
3. Catholics have ways of possibly identifying the hierarchy by public documents. (I posted a list of living bishops appointed by Pius XII recently.) Here it is again for those who have not read it: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html
4. If these bishops recognized the false claims of the post-conciliar "popes," that is not proof of heresy. They must have knowingly held to heretical ideas while being aware of the conflict with the Church's teaching.
5. Many Catholics have remained in the structure of the Conciliar church, have not rejected the Church's teachings on any points, and have remained Catholic. These Catholics in this structure are like someone who has been robbed but is not aware it yet. We differ from these Catholics because God has graced us to be aware of the robbery.
6. Unless evidence shows us the contrary, these bishops must be given the benefit of the doubt. The Conciliar church cannot be equated with a Protestant sect. A Catholic who remains in the Conciliar church while erroneously believing it to be the Catholic Church and who does not adhere to a heretical proposition, would still be a member of the Church. This includes the bishops with jurisdiction.
7. It appears to me that this thesis assumes heresy on the part of the bishops with jurisdiction, even though it has not been proven.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Tue Oct 18, 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)
Good work, Mike, thank you. Isn't that list of bishops consecrated before, say, 1965 long!

Dear Gabriele,

I had previously responded to one of Fr. Ricossa's paragraphs as follows, but we got off track. Here's how the discussion went (the first quote is from Fr. Ricossa's article):

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


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

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

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


You replied:
Gabriele wrote:
Secondly, these three points are three convictions of sedevacantists. Only the first is a convinction of the guerardians too, I think.


I let that go at the time, happy to take the point that nobody has proved these assertions. However it is important for the rigour of this discussion to remind you that those three points are asserted by the Guerardian Fr. Ricossa in the article you provided. Yet you don't think that the Guardians (or sedevacantists) have ever proved them. You are right, I think, nobody has ever proved them. Do you see what a thin foundation the Thesis is built upon?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:30 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:
Good work, Mike, thank you. Isn't that list of bishops consecrated before, say, 1965 long!


John,

When I first found the list a few years ago, I was shocked at how many of the bishops sent by the Church were still alive. I had thought the number would have been less, considering the length of time that has passed. It is now almost A.D. 2012!

As you have said on numerous occasions, by the teaching of common error, we are not just limited to the Pius XII bishops. This teaching would greatly increase the number of potential lawful electors.

Another thought has been going through my mind about the idea of common error. If antipope X were to appoint John Smith as the bishop of Wykikamoocow, and through common error the priests and faithful accept him, that his jurisdiction would be supplied by the Church due to this error. But, to take this one step further, when the priests of the diocese accept him, it seems that this act alone may legitimize the bishop due to the acclamation of the clergy in the diocese. It would seem that habitual jurisdiction could be obtained for a diocesan bishop by the acclamation of the clergy within that diocese, with the tacit approval of the pope. This would seem to follow in the same manner you suggested about a diocesan election.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:19 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)
Mike wrote:
Another thought has been going through my mind about the idea of common error. If antipope X were to appoint John Smith as the bishop of Wykikamoocow, and through common error the priests and faithful accept him, that his jurisdiction would be supplied by the Church due to this error.


Mike, I'm unsure whether you have clear in your mind the distinction between habitual jurisdiction and supplied jurisdiction (this post explains it: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=945&p=9585#p9585). In the circumstances you describe, in which a man has been invalidly appointed to a vacant episcopal office, the "bishop" concerned would have no jurisdiction at all (assuming that the appointment really is invalid). That is, he would possess no jurisdiction, no right to rule in the Church. However, he could possibly exercise supplied jurisdiction, depending upon the existence of the circumstances laid down in canon 209 (e.g. common error). He would exercise it (unknowingly) in each case in which he posited an act requiring the jurisdiction he does not in reality possess.

When I describe a case in which a non-pope appoints a Catholic to a vacant office and the Church supplies the jurisdiction lacking to the non-pope, the jurisdiction is supplied for the act of appointment only, and to the non-pope (not to the bishop). This supply of jurisdiction, for this one act, validates the act of appointment. The bishop's jurisdiction comes with the office, because it is attached to the office, and it is habitual (i.e. ordinary) jurisdiction, not supplied jurisdiction.

Mike wrote:
But, to take this one step further, when the priests of the diocese accept him, it seems that this act alone may legitimize the bishop due to the acclamation of the clergy in the diocese. It would seem that habitual jurisdiction could be obtained for a diocesan bishop by the acclamation of the clergy within that diocese, with the tacit approval of the pope. This would seem to follow in the same manner you suggested about a diocesan election.

This is an interesting idea, and may well have merit. I certainly hadn't considered it before.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:56 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:
Another thought has been going through my mind about the idea of common error. If antipope X were to appoint John Smith as the bishop of Wykikamoocow, and through common error the priests and faithful accept him, that his jurisdiction would be supplied by the Church due to this error.


Mike, I'm unsure whether you have clear in your mind the distinction between habitual jurisdiction and supplied jurisdiction (this post explains it: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=945&p=9585#p9585). In the circumstances you describe, in which a man has been invalidly appointed to a vacant episcopal office, the "bishop" concerned would have no jurisdiction at all (assuming that the appointment really is invalid). That is, he would possess no jurisdiction, no right to rule in the Church. However, he could possibly exercise supplied jurisdiction, depending upon the existence of the circumstances laid down in canon 209 (e.g. common error). He would exercise it (unknowingly) in each case in which he posited an act requiring the jurisdiction he does not in reality possess.

When I describe a case in which a non-pope appoints a Catholic to a vacant office and the Church supplies the jurisdiction lacking to the non-pope, the jurisdiction is supplied for the act of appointment only, and to the non-pope (not to the bishop). This supply of jurisdiction, for this one act, validates the act of appointment. The bishop's jurisdiction comes with the office, because it is attached to the office, and it is habitual (i.e. ordinary) jurisdiction, not supplied jurisdiction.

Mike wrote:
But, to take this one step further, when the priests of the diocese accept him, it seems that this act alone may legitimize the bishop due to the acclamation of the clergy in the diocese. It would seem that habitual jurisdiction could be obtained for a diocesan bishop by the acclamation of the clergy within that diocese, with the tacit approval of the pope. This would seem to follow in the same manner you suggested about a diocesan election.

This is an interesting idea, and may well have merit. I certainly hadn't considered it before.


John, there was some confusion in my mind, but now it is clear. Thank you.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:45 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)
Dear Gabriele, and all,

Here's an interesting thought.

Fr. Ricossa says this:
Quote:
[all of the Conciliar bishops lack ordinary jurisdiction because they are] in communion with John Paul II, head of the new “Conciliar Church”.


Then later he cites approvingly (he calls it "masterful") the argument of the Abbe Lucien as follows:

Quote:
On the other hand, it is emphasized how this opinion [i.e. that the adherence of the whole Church to a claimant is proof that the claimant is truly pope] 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.


Consider closely the principle here enunciated. For it essentially describes a distinction between merely verbal recognition of Paul VI (or JP2) which is characterised by apparent submission combined with a failure actually to be taught by him, and the true recognition that Catholics give to a pope by which they treat him as their proximate rule of faith - that is, they conform their ideas to his in the conscious effort to ensure that they really think with the Church. Now let us return to the example of Cardinal Siri (and there were plenty of others, such as Cardinals Ottaviani & Bacci), who clearly did not conform their ideas to those of Paul VI and yet showed no other sign that they doubted or refused recognition of him.

Did such a verbal recognition, combined with personal refusal to adopt the ideas authoritatively presented as the teaching of the Church and the Roman See at Vatican II (promulgated solemnly by Paul VI), constitute a delict or type of apostasy sufficient to deprive them of ordinary jurisdiction? I say, no, and obviously not.

Then what is left of the principle enunciated by Fr. Ricossa in the first quote above?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:28 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:
Good work, Mike, thank you. Isn't that list of bishops consecrated before, say, 1965 long!

Dear Gabriele,

I had previously responded to one of Fr. Ricossa's paragraphs as follows, but we got off track. Here's how the discussion went (the first quote is from Fr. Ricossa's article):

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


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

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

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


You replied:
Gabriele wrote:
Secondly, these three points are three convictions of sedevacantists. Only the first is a convinction of the guerardians too, I think.


I let that go at the time, happy to take the point that nobody has proved these assertions. However it is important for the rigour of this discussion to remind you that those three points are asserted by the Guerardian Fr. Ricossa in the article you provided. Yet you don't think that the Guardians (or sedevacantists) have ever proved them. You are right, I think, nobody has ever proved them. Do you see what a thin foundation the Thesis is built upon?


Those three points are not asserted by Fr. Ricossa. In fact, he is talking about the “strictly sedevacantist position”. This is evidenced, among other things, by the fact that in the second point of his list he talks of “formal heresy”, which is not admitted by Fr. Ricossa who retains, instead, that the “conciliar bishops” are only “materially heretical” (and not even formally, like the strict sedevacantists).
Therefore, none thinnes.


Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:08 am
Profile E-mail

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



In this case (a “retired” bishop personally orthodox but who recognizes Vatican II), the bishop has not jurisdiction because he is part of the materialiter hierarchy.
I see that you have touched this point more forward quoting Fr. Ricossa and Fr. Lucien. So, please, you see the next post.


John Lane wrote:
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.



A material continuity may be not much, nearly anything, but not anything. Therefore, it is impossible that it does not mean anything. After which, I understand that, in your opinion, it is necessary an even formal continuity. Personally, I do not agree with your opinion, but I respect it.


Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:15 am
Profile E-mail

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

Here's an interesting thought.

Fr. Ricossa says this:
Quote:
[all of the Conciliar bishops lack ordinary jurisdiction because they are] in communion with John Paul II, head of the new “Conciliar Church”.


Then later he cites approvingly (he calls it "masterful") the argument of the Abbe Lucien as follows:

Quote:
On the other hand, it is emphasized how this opinion [i.e. that the adherence of the whole Church to a claimant is proof that the claimant is truly pope] 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.


Consider closely the principle here enunciated. For it essentially describes a distinction between merely verbal recognition of Paul VI (or JP2) which is characterised by apparent submission combined with a failure actually to be taught by him, and the true recognition that Catholics give to a pope by which they treat him as their proximate rule of faith - that is, they conform their ideas to his in the conscious effort to ensure that they really think with the Church. Now let us return to the example of Cardinal Siri (and there were plenty of others, such as Cardinals Ottaviani & Bacci), who clearly did not conform their ideas to those of Paul VI and yet showed no other sign that they doubted or refused recognition of him.

Did such a verbal recognition, combined with personal refusal to adopt the ideas authoritatively presented as the teaching of the Church and the Roman See at Vatican II (promulgated solemnly by Paul VI), constitute a delict or type of apostasy sufficient to deprive them of ordinary jurisdiction? I say, no, and obviously not.

Then what is left of the principle enunciated by Fr. Ricossa in the first quote above?


Dear John,
you talk of “verbal recognition” as if it were a silliness. In my opinion, instead, very reasonably, it matters little (for our purposes) that a bishop keeps the faith in himself. What matters is what he professes publicly, as a member of the hierarchy. In particular, if he approves publicly the erroneous teachings of Vatican II. If he recognizes publicly the “Authority” of this anti-Christian “council”. What you call an “apparent submission” is an effective and objective submission under the aspect of the public behavior of this bishop. Which is what counts, considering that we discuss of the hierarchy of the Church and of the Church teaching (ecclesia docens).


Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:23 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)
Mike wrote:
Quote:
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!


Gabriele,

A thought I have about what you have said is that your idea seems to be that if we do not personally know a bishop with jurisdiction, that they do not exist. This is a dangerous assumption. I have some thoughts about your comments in this thread.

1. The Church's teaching on Apostolicity states that the hierarchy is essential to the Church and will continue until the end of the world. (see numerous approved sources on this thread: http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/vi ... f=11&t=984 )
2. The logical conclusion from the teaching on Apostolicity of the Church, is that in our current crisis, the hierarchy is still present in the world.
3. Catholics have ways of possibly identifying the hierarchy by public documents. (I posted a list of living bishops appointed by Pius XII recently.) Here it is again for those who have not read it: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html
4. If these bishops recognized the false claims of the post-conciliar "popes," that is not proof of heresy. They must have knowingly held to heretical ideas while being aware of the conflict with the Church's teaching.
5. Many Catholics have remained in the structure of the Conciliar church, have not rejected the Church's teachings on any points, and have remained Catholic. These Catholics in this structure are like someone who has been robbed but is not aware it yet. We differ from these Catholics because God has graced us to be aware of the robbery.
6. Unless evidence shows us the contrary, these bishops must be given the benefit of the doubt. The Conciliar church cannot be equated with a Protestant sect. A Catholic who remains in the Conciliar church while erroneously believing it to be the Catholic Church and who does not adhere to a heretical proposition, would still be a member of the Church. This includes the bishops with jurisdiction.
7. It appears to me that this thesis assumes heresy on the part of the bishops with jurisdiction, even though it has not been proven.


Hi Mike!
Please, watch the last posts I wrote to John.
I had read years ago the document that you have indicated about the catholic hierarchy.
For the guerardians the bishops who recognizes Vatican II and his “Authority” (now the “Authority” of Benedict XVI) they are not formal heretics, but only material heretics. They have not jurisdiction, because they are part of the materialiter hierachy.
The Modernist sect, in a way, is much worse than the Protestant sect. As you know, St. Pius X said that modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. Now the modernists occupy Rome and the See of St. Peter.


Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:29 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:
Those three points are not asserted by Fr. Ricossa. In fact, he is talking about the “strictly sedevacantist position”. This is evidenced, among other things, by the fact that in the second point of his list he talks of “formal heresy”, which is not admitted by Fr. Ricossa ...


OK, so the whole thing is a straw man argument, since this is not what sedevacantism entails and I doubt that Fr. Ricossa or anybody else can point to where any serious sedevacantist presented proofs of these things. I'm not saying they weren't asserted by various people, of course - I can think of several who did assert them. But never proved (and it is striking that Fr. Cekada, for example, who doesn't conserve ink, has never tried to prove them, leading me to think that he doesn't believe them either).

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:02 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)
Gabriele wrote:
you talk of “verbal recognition” as if it were a silliness. In my opinion, instead, very reasonably, it matters little (for our purposes) that a bishop keeps the faith in himself. What matters is what he professes publicly, as a member of the hierarchy. In particular, if he approves publicly the erroneous teachings of Vatican II. If he recognizes publicly the “Authority” of this anti-Christian “council”. What you call an “apparent submission” is an effective and objective submission under the aspect of the public behavior of this bishop. Which is what counts, considering that we discuss of the hierarchy of the Church and of the Church teaching (ecclesia docens).


Dear Gabriele,

Not silliness, real confusion in the face of a deep mystery.

Let's discuss a specific bishop and see how we go. Cardinal Ottaviani. Did he profess the Vatican II religion publicly? If you say yes, please detail in what ways he did this. (And I'm more than happy to choose another case if you like, so don't think I have chosen this one for any purpose other than to illustrate principles.)

I disagree vehemently with this comment: "In my opinion, instead, very reasonably, it matters little (for our purposes) that a bishop keeps the faith in himself." Our judgements are judgements based exclusively upon the evidence in the external forum, but they are real judgements of the faith or lack thereof of the person in view. If your judgement is that Paul VI was a heretic, that's because the evidence suffices to convince the intellect that he is a heretic. If your judgement is that Ottaviani, or Siri, or Bacci, was not a heretic, then that is because the evidence is such as to convince the intellect that he was not a heretic. It may also be the case that you are unsure, in which case you must think of him as a Catholic pending better data.

In forming a judgement whether an individual is really a heretic or merely a confused and mistaken Catholic, the question is whether he knows better. That is, does his error arise from a refusal to be taught by the Church, or mere confusion about what the Church teaches. You write about "material heresy" as if you are unclear about this. Take a look at what Cardinal de Lugo says:
Quote:
"...Neither is it always demanded in the external forum that there be a warning and a reprimand as described above for somebody to be punished as heretical and pertinacious, and such a requirement is by no means always admitted in practice by the Holy Office. For if it could be established in some other way, given that the doctrine is well known, given the kind of person involved and given the other circumstances, that the accused could not have been unaware that his thesis was opposed to the Church, he would be considered as a heretic from this fact… The reason for this is clear because the exterior warning can serve only to ensure that someone who has erred understands the opposition which exists between his error and the teaching of the Church. If he knew the subject through books and conciliar definitions much better than he could know it by the declarations of someone admonishing him then there would be no reason to insist on a further warning for him to become pertinacious against the Church." (Disp. XX, sect. IV, n. l57-158)

Do you accept this doctrine?

You might also find it helpful to review this article, which highlights the overwhelming body of evidence against JP2 in the framework of what I believe to be the correct principles according to which heresy is to be judged: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/post7.html

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:21 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)
Gabriele wrote:
A material continuity may be not much, nearly anything, but not anything. Therefore, it is impossible that it does not mean anything.

I invite you to quote a philosophy manual supporting this notion.

Matter without form does not exist. It is not a being. And its existence is precisely what you need to avoid the heresy that the hierarchy has ceased to exist.

And because of this same principle, the correct answer to the question, is Benedict pope, is "no" - even by a Guerardian, because understood correctly, a pope matrialiter is not pope.

In the application of the formal/material distinction by analogy to the papacy, we have to be careful to maintain the true principles of matter and form, which is difficult because there are so many differences between material things and moral things. A pope is an accidental being, a composite of a substantial being (a man) and a set of rights (i.e. the rights of a pope). In fact, the papacy itself is a relatio, a relation between one man and others. The combination of the man, the substantial being, with the relatio (the accident) constitutes the accidental being, the pope. Bishop Sanborn, betraying confusion of thought says that the papacy is a habitus. I can cite authorites showing that the papacy is a relation; Bishop Sanborn can't do likewise for his theory.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:42 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)
Wernz-Vidal: "Indeed this is what is deduced in the first place from the very nature of jurisdiction. For jurisdiction is essentially a relation between a superior who has the right to obedience and a subject who has the duty of obeying." (Jus Canonicum 454. Scholion.)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:53 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)
Gabriele wrote:
Mike wrote:
Quote:
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!


Gabriele,

A thought I have about what you have said is that your idea seems to be that if we do not personally know a bishop with jurisdiction, that they do not exist. This is a dangerous assumption. I have some thoughts about your comments in this thread.

1. The Church's teaching on Apostolicity states that the hierarchy is essential to the Church and will continue until the end of the world. (see numerous approved sources on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=984 )
2. The logical conclusion from the teaching on Apostolicity of the Church, is that in our current crisis, the hierarchy is still present in the world.
3. Catholics have ways of possibly identifying the hierarchy by public documents. (I posted a list of living bishops appointed by Pius XII recently.) Here it is again for those who have not read it: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html
4. If these bishops recognized the false claims of the post-conciliar "popes," that is not proof of heresy. They must have knowingly held to heretical ideas while being aware of the conflict with the Church's teaching.
5. Many Catholics have remained in the structure of the Conciliar church, have not rejected the Church's teachings on any points, and have remained Catholic. These Catholics in this structure are like someone who has been robbed but is not aware it yet. We differ from these Catholics because God has graced us to be aware of the robbery.
6. Unless evidence shows us the contrary, these bishops must be given the benefit of the doubt. The Conciliar church cannot be equated with a Protestant sect. A Catholic who remains in the Conciliar church while erroneously believing it to be the Catholic Church and who does not adhere to a heretical proposition, would still be a member of the Church. This includes the bishops with jurisdiction.
7. It appears to me that this thesis assumes heresy on the part of the bishops with jurisdiction, even though it has not been proven.


Hi Mike!
Please, watch the last posts I wrote to John.
I had read years ago the document that you have indicated about the catholic hierarchy.
For the guerardians the bishops who recognizes Vatican II and his “Authority” (now the “Authority” of Benedict XVI) they are not formal heretics, but only material heretics. They have not jurisdiction, because they are part of the materialiter hierachy.
The Modernist sect, in a way, is much worse than the Protestant sect. As you know, St. Pius X said that modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. Now the modernists occupy Rome and the See of St. Peter.


Dear Gabriele,

I have read everything you wrote on this forum. I read everything here because I find each post to be very important, but also because I try to be faithful to the duty I have accepted in being a moderator here.

With respect, I would ask you to present Catholic authorities to support the idea of :

1. The hierarchy can exist in a state which is not both matter and form. (To have a powerless hierarchy who only have the potential to become the hierarchy appears to me to be a heretical idea, as it appears to contradict the Church's teaching on Apostolicity. It appears to me that what this theory is saying is that the ecclesia docens is a dead corpse which may come back to life. But, if they hierarchy is dead, then the Church has ended. But, I will look at your approved sources when you present them.)
2. Heresy can be presumed without evidence demonstrating that the individual accused has knowingly held to a teaching contradicting the Church's teaching.

To your next point, whether the modernist is worse than a Protestant sect is not the issue. A Protestant sect operates outside the Church and is formally severed from her. If a Catholic joins a Protestant sect, they are immediately and publicly by that act outside the Church. The Conciliar church is a loose term we use tend to use, but it really lacks precision. Catholics who live under the the anti-pope are not to be presumed to have severed themselves from the Catholic Church.

There is no formal body calling itself, "Modernist church," or the "Conciliar Church," or the "Novus Ordo Church," that has been condemned by the Holy See. The Catholics who adhere to the Faith in this murky Conciliar church do not consider themselves as having separated from the Church. They along with others such as many Catholics in the the Society of Saint Pius X and others think that Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church. This act of believing that one is united to the Church would demonstrate that the Catholic while in error, is not in schism. Secondly, if this Catholic still believes all that the Church teaches at least to the best of his understanding and does not knowingly believe anything contrary to the Church's teaching, then the Catholic cannot be called a heretic.There is only one thing this Catholic can be called: "a Catholic." :)

Due to the fact that there is no formal body or sect, the individuals within this murky "Conciliar church" must be dealt with individually on a case by case basis, not as a group. This includes the bishops, priests and laity. When Catholics come from this "Novus Ordo" structure, and begin attending Mass at a traditional chapel, they are not treated as a Protestant who makes an abjuration and must be formally admitted into the Church. Have you ever wondered why? The reason is that they have not adhered to a sect, they were duped Catholics who were lied to and deceived, but not in a sect outside the Church.

Lastly, I gave you a list of the older Catholic bishops. Do you have any evidence of heresy against any or all them? You may present their written statements, statements of witnesses, statements of their actions, etc.

(edited for further clarity)

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:52 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:
Matter without form does not exist. It is not a being. And its existence is precisely what you need to avoid the heresy that the hierarchy has ceased to exist.


I am sure you know this very well, but for the sake of a little more details, it has to be said that outside of Aristotelian physics, matter and form are used as figurative constructs, as in logic when we say that the antecedent and the consequent are the matter of the syllogism, and the nexus (ergo) is the form. An invalid syllogism contains an ergo that purports to be the form, but since the syllogism is invalid in virtue of a violation of syllogistic law, then there is no real nexus. Still, the matter of the syllogism exists without form (and we can actually see it!).


Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:13 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:
John Lane wrote:
Matter without form does not exist. It is not a being. And its existence is precisely what you need to avoid the heresy that the hierarchy has ceased to exist.


I am sure you know this very well, but for the sake of a little more details, it has to be said that outside of Aristotelian physics, matter and form are used as figurative constructs, as in logic when we say that the antecedent and the consequent are the matter of the syllogism, and the nexus (ergo) is the form. An invalid syllogism contains an ergo that purports to be the form, but since the syllogism is invalid in virtue of a violation of syllogistic law, then there is no real nexus. Still, the matter of the syllogism exists without form (and we can actually see it!).


OK, so take that to its logical conclusion and what do you get? A syllogism that is invalid is not really a syllogism, so the matter which we conventionally agree to call matter is not really so - it dissolves before our eyes as a mistake we must abandon. It is, precisely, not the matter of a syllogism. We just thought it was.

The point to hold remorselessly before our minds in that we are applying this construct analogously. If we remember that at every point we can continually refer back to the proper application of it to physical beings and see whether we have messed up. That's my point here - matter without form does not have being. If we find that our analogical application of the distinction ends with the assertion that matter does exist without form, we've gone wrong somewhere.

All analogies limp, of course, so that's another thing to keep in mind.

Think about the way I used the terms much earlier, when I said that the matter of the papacy is actually any sane, Catholic, male. But even this is a very loose use of the term. Without the form there is no matter at all. But we conventionally agree to abuse the term in this way and we call the sane, Catholic, male "matter" anyway, because it's a useful and enlightening way to think about the realities (as long as we know the limitations of this approach). But we wouldn't think it reasonable to assert that all sane, Catholic, males are popes materialiter. That would expose an error of thought, surely!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:01 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 Julian,

Here's a better example. Water is the matter of Baptism. But if we discover after a ceremony that the form used was defective, is the water in the font "material baptism"? Is the baby baptised materialiter?

The water not only still exists, but we can see it. This is where we need to keep in mind that the application of these ideas is analogous. Obviously the water is no longer matter for Baptism, in the sense that it is no more matter for Baptism than any other holy water. For a period it was proximately disposed to receive the form of Baptism, but now it is not, so it differs not from other holy water. The water as matter for Baptism does not exist. The baby isn't baptised, period.

Of course in the case of the "material popes" the defect can easily and more reasonably be said to be in the matter, not the form - that is, they were not proper matter for the papacy, lacking an essential qualification, membership in the Church. Going back to Baptism, this would be like discovering after the ceremony that lemon juice had been used instead of water. Or again, the defect could have been in the recipient of Baptism. Imagine that you tried to baptise a cat. Apart from scratches, what would you have? A cat baptised materialiter? A material Christian?

The Guerardian answer to this, I suppose, would be to insist that the material pope has this difference, which persists: he is the only man designated to be pope by the lawful electors. Against this there are several objections already put.

1. Since he isn't a Catholic, he is less proximately disposed to receive the form than any sane, male, Catholic.
2. An electee has two choices - accept or refuse. He doesn't have the option of holding his decision over indefinitely. Therefore his refusal to accept (it is entirely in his hands to remove whatever obstacles exist to his valid election, obviously) is a clear sign that he refuses the office. Paul VI made this even clearer by laying his tiara on the altar of St. Peter's and then selling it. His successors made it clear by refusing to be crowned at all. All of them also refused to act as popes, especially refusing to teach the Church authoritatively, and preferring instead a new kind of "papacy" which combined a kind of consultative, "facilitator" role with a bit of hand-wringing over the results.
3. A designation to office which is not accepted is extinguished. There is no evidence of which I am aware that any conclave ever conducted any process or made any declaration to remove a given designation in order to clear the way for a new election.
4. The form of the papacy in this construct is the rights, taken collectively, of the pope to rule the faithful (i.e. his right to make laws, punish infractions, teach authoritatively, grant jurisdiction, etc.) These come with concomitant charisms, such as infallibility. Yet it is the form which is said by the Guerardians to be absent. Bishop Sanborn illustrated how unclear the meaning of the Thesis is by asserting that a material pope can appoint material cardinals, who are therefore the legally authorised electors. Yet appointing cardinals is, precisely, one of the rights of the papacy which are the form. So we have a part of the form being validly received, but not the whole. Does anything more need to be said about this?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:23 am
Profile E-mail

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

Not silliness, real confusion in the face of a deep mystery.


I have write silliness wanting to say “something of no significance”. In italian we say that a thing with no significance is a silliness (sciocchezza).


John Lane wrote:
Let's discuss a specific bishop and see how we go. Cardinal Ottaviani. Did he profess the Vatican II religion publicly?


Yes, of course. Recognizing publicly Vatican II as a council of the Church and approving its documents (and by consequence the doctrines contained in them). Recognizing publicly Paul VI as a Pope. Showing himself submissive to him. Etcetera.

John Lane wrote:
(And I'm more than happy to choose another case if you like, so don't think I have chosen this one for any purpose other than to illustrate principles.)


The same applies to the others distinguished prelates who you mentioned.


John Lane wrote:
I disagree vehemently with this comment: "In my opinion, instead, very reasonably, it matters little (for our purposes) that a bishop keeps the faith in himself." Our judgements are judgements based exclusively upon the evidence in the external forum, but they are real judgements of the faith or lack thereof of the person in view. If your judgement is that Paul VI was a heretic, that's because the evidence suffices to convince the intellect that he is a heretic. If your judgement is that Ottaviani, or Siri, or Bacci, was not a heretic, then that is because the evidence is such as to convince the intellect that he was not a heretic. It may also be the case that you are unsure, in which case you must think of him as a Catholic pending better data.


Dear John, of course. But we have not warnings of the authority or notoriety (on the concept, see below), so we have not the possibility to say that these men were heretics.


John Lane wrote:
In forming a judgement whether an individual is really a heretic or merely a confused and mistaken Catholic, the question is whether he knows better. That is, does his error arise from a refusal to be taught by the Church, or mere confusion about what the Church teaches. You write about "material heresy" as if you are unclear about this. Take a look at what Cardinal de Lugo says:
Quote:
"...Neither is it always demanded in the external forum that there be a warning and a reprimand as described above for somebody to be punished as heretical and pertinacious, and such a requirement is by no means always admitted in practice by the Holy Office. For if it could be established in some other way, given that the doctrine is well known, given the kind of person involved and given the other circumstances, that the accused could not have been unaware that his thesis was opposed to the Church, he would be considered as a heretic from this fact… The reason for this is clear because the exterior warning can serve only to ensure that someone who has erred understands the opposition which exists between his error and the teaching of the Church. If he knew the subject through books and conciliar definitions much better than he could know it by the declarations of someone admonishing him then there would be no reason to insist on a further warning for him to become pertinacious against the Church." (Disp. XX, sect. IV, n. l57-158)

Do you accept this doctrine?


It seems to me that, now at least, the pertinacity must be notoria (notorious in english?), that is the subject who have expressed the heresy must recognize publicly to profess a doctrine contrary to the magisterium of the Church (as did Luther). Bp Sanborn speaks of it in his work De papatu materiali. I think that the notoriety is really appropriate, because it allows to remove any possible doubt about the choice (to deviate from the Faith of the Church) of the interested subject.


Last edited by Gabriele on Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:04 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:
Gabriele wrote:
A material continuity may be not much, nearly anything, but not anything. Therefore, it is impossible that it does not mean anything.

I invite you to quote a philosophy manual supporting this notion.

Matter without form does not exist. It is not a being. And its existence is precisely what you need to avoid the heresy that the hierarchy has ceased to exist.

And because of this same principle, the correct answer to the question, is Benedict pope, is "no" - even by a Guerardian, because understood correctly, a pope matrialiter is not pope.

In the application of the formal/material distinction by analogy to the papacy, we have to be careful to maintain the true principles of matter and form, which is difficult because there are so many differences between material things and moral things. A pope is an accidental being, a composite of a substantial being (a man) and a set of rights (i.e. the rights of a pope). In fact, the papacy itself is a relatio, a relation between one man and others. The combination of the man, the substantial being, with the relatio (the accident) constitutes the accidental being, the pope. Bishop Sanborn, betraying confusion of thought says that the papacy is a habitus. I can cite authorites showing that the papacy is a relation; Bishop Sanborn can't do likewise for his theory.

Bp Sanborn answers to this precise objection in De papatu materiali, Objection number 6.
Ps: perhaps you do not accept that the designation (to the papacy) may exist without (papal) authority.


Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:07 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)
Mike wrote:
Dear Gabriele,

I have read everything you wrote on this forum. I read everything here because I find each post to be very important, but also because I try to be faithful to the duty I have accepted in being a moderator here.

With respect, I would ask you to present Catholic authorities to support the idea of :

1. The hierarchy can exist in a state which is not both matter and form. (To have a powerless hierarchy who only have the potential to become the hierarchy appears to me to be a heretical idea, as it appears to contradict the Church's teaching on Apostolicity. It appears to me that what this theory is saying is that the ecclesia docens is a dead corpse which may come back to life. But, if they hierarchy is dead, then the Church has ended. But, I will look at your approved sources when you present them.)


Following your reasoning, during the sede vacante, also the Papacy is a dead thing which may come back to life: in fact, it remains (not the Pope, his jurisdiction, his authority but) only the power to elect him. But I do not think that your conclusion is that the Papacy is dead. Or yes?

Mike wrote:
2. Heresy can be presumed without evidence demonstrating that the individual accused has knowingly held to a teaching contradicting the Church's teaching.


For me, Ottaviani and the others, they were not heretics. But, as bishops, their acts (public and institutional acts) were objectively hereticals, harmful, anti-Christians.

Mike wrote:
To your next point, whether the modernist is worse than a Protestant sect is not the issue. A Protestant sect
operates outside the Church and is formally severed from her. If a Catholic joins a Protestant sect, they are immediately and publicly by that act outside the Church. The Conciliar church is a loose term we use tend to use, but it really lacks precision. Catholics who live under the the anti-pope are not to be presumed to have severed themselves from the Catholic Church.
There is no formal body calling itself, "Modernist church," or the "Conciliar Church," or the "Novus Ordo Church," that has been condemned by the Holy See. The Catholics who adhere to the Faith in this murky Conciliar church do not consider themselves as having separated from the Church. They along with others such as many Catholics in the the Society of Saint Pius X and others think that Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church. This act of believing that one is united to the Church would demonstrate that the Catholic while in error, is not in schism. Secondly, if this Catholic still believes all that the Church teaches at least to the best of his understanding and does not knowingly believe anything contrary to the Church's teaching, then the Catholic cannot be called a heretic.There is only one thing this Catholic can be called: "a Catholic." :)
Due to the fact that there is no formal body or sect, the individuals within this murky "Conciliar church" must be dealt with individually on a case by case basis, not as a group. This includes the bishops, priests and laity. When Catholics come from this "Novus Ordo" structure, and begin attending Mass at a traditional chapel, they are not treated as a Protestant who makes an abjuration and must be formally admitted into the Church. Have you ever wondered why? The reason is that they have not adhered to a sect, they were duped Catholics who were lied to and deceived, but not in a sect outside the Church.


I would have many things to say. I want at least one thing is clear. I do not consider the Catholics who live under a pope materialiter are heretics or outside of the Church. And I have never said this. And when a Catholic, coming from the conciliar church, comes at attending the Holy Mass where I go he is treated as a normal Catholic, with every kindness and understanding. I have done this experience me too.
For the bishops it is the same thing, regarded as private persons, but not regarded as members of the hierarchy. Their communion and their obedience to an authority false and harmful for the Church can not be without consequences.

Mike wrote:
Lastly, I gave you a list of the older Catholic bishops. Do you have any evidence of heresy against any or all them? You may present their written statements, statements of witnesses, statements of their actions, etc.


Perhaps you know them better. Does it exist only a bishop, among these, who has publicly rejected the "magisterium" of Vatican II and the "authority" of Benedict XVI? It is possible that I do not know. Please, Mike, indicate to me him.
Cordially


Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:10 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)
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
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.

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)



I just noticed this. In order that people reading this don´t think that Guerard had some heterodox opinions in regards to Our Lady, I have to add that the exact time of the betrothal with St. Joseph is disputed amongst theologians.
Guerard simply follows the opinion of St. Thomas [Sth. IIIa q. 29 art. 2] there, which I am sure he esteemed more than you do, Cristian :)

In regards to Mr. Lane: I don´t quite agree with your explanation of the analogous use of matter and form, but as I am not learned enough to respond properly (and I am also not a thesis apologist, nor am I in any contact with Guerardian clergy), I declare myself defeated. Thank you very much for your efforts and explanations.


Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:03 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:
In regards to Mr. Lane: I don´t quite agree with your explanation of the analogous use of matter and form, but as I am not learned enough to respond properly (and I am also not a thesis apologist, nor am I in any contact with Guerardian clergy), I declare myself defeated. Thank you very much for your efforts and explanations.


No problem, Julian. I'm happy to drop the matter too, as we don't seem to be able to get answers to the actual objections, which is not surprising given the language barrier.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:27 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 144 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users 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.