Yes, the way to prove that the Thesis is not too complicated is definitely with a huge complicated post.
You ask why do we care about what Prevost says or does? We care about what he personally says or does just as much as we care about the words and acts of any heretic. The reason why we talk about him so much is because he is mistakenly thought of as being the Pope by billions, incl. many Catholics, and this gives him an influence over the faithful which allows him to do much evil. This is why we care. The only power that he has is that many people think he is the Pope. That's it. He is neither Pope formally, nor materially (no such thing, complete novelty), just a public heretic who instead of obeying the judgment of the Catholic Magisterium, replaces it with his own, and of his Modernist sect.
"What Fr. Guérard des Lauriers did was to pinpoint exactly what is that 'something' of the Papacy that Prevost possesses and that the other guy does not possess."
Do you want to know what he possesses, what makes him different than the "garage pope"? The appearance, and common error. That's it. Don't believe me? Okay, first try to imagine we are living in a Catholic time (like the Middle Ages). Now, take away his appearance of being pope by making his and his predecessors' heresies known as being against the Faith to the entire Catholic world. Next, imagine that the entire Catholic world learns that the Fathers and Doctors teach that a publicly heretical Pope has no authority or power. What would be the result? Catholics would cease to recognize him en masse and demand of their bishops to cease recognizing him and to remove him. What would that leave for Prevost? Nothing.
I think that the thesis exists purely to try and explain how Apostolic Succession continues with the extended vacancy of the Holy See, when we know common error can supply jurisdiction to the actions of AntiPopes where they are for the good of the Church and that ordinary jurisdiction attached to offices created by a true Pope is given to the occupant of the office when he ascends to it. Many Eastern rite bishops have certainly valid orders, are elected by their own rite and can continue Apostolic Succession in the Church by being appointed by an antiPope under common error.
I think both the thesis and totalism are wrong because of what the Church teaches about herself.
I think the thesis is sold as a solution to a perceived problem with Apostolic Succession in recent times. I don’t think it was necessary when it was written.
I disagree, John, when you say: "I think that the thesis exists purely to try and explain how Apostolic Succession continues with the extended vacancy of the Holy See"
This is how it is sold in the English-speaking world. But I think it actually exists as Mgr GDL's explanation for the situation of the papacy, and that in formulating it he expressed a number of interesting and helpful insights.
It was said to me recently by an associate who holds to the Thesis:
"As long as you admit the body of the Thesis, which is the notion of being Pope materially and being Pope formally, and that the Apostolic See has been formally vacant since at least December 8th, 1965, then in principle you hold the Thesis. Everything beyond that is either a theological conclusion derived from it or polemical writings (e.g. una cum)."
That definition obviously has no binding force – because there is no organ to authoritatively determine what is and is not "The Thesis" – but it's interesting that there was nothing there about "explaining how apostolic succession continues."
So basically the thesis is being used by people for their own purposes and what is presented to us is often an extension of what was originally proposed, kind of like the sede position itself.
It’d be nice to read the original, rather than expanded versions written later.
Except that the “thesis” is a complete novelty unknown in the history of the Church.
If he’s a public heretic, and therefore severed from the Church, then the guy at the Canadian log cabin has a better claim than Prevost does (at least until he declares himself pope).
No, I meant it seriously: Roy is still part of the Catholic Church (for now), whereas Prevost is not. That may change, unfortunately, but for the moment I should hope it’s pretty obvious.
That would make +Guérard des Lauriers an excommunicate as well. And he is the source of your opinions.
It has been my experience through the years that some people just should not be dealing with Theology or Canon Law. If there is no Roman Pontiff, then one obviously cannot get his permission. A basic principle of Canon Law is that if the law becomes impossible or extremely difficult to observe, the obligation ceases to bind. Btw, that's twice that I've had to explain basic legal principles to you. The first was that if there is no criminal, there is no crime (with regard to the NUC).
I only 'care' what Prevost says in as much as I have to keep explaining to those who accuse 'My Catholic Faith', that he isn't Catholic, let alone a pope.
Fr. Coradello: "It follows that ... to assist at a Mass in union with him [with someone who is not a Pope, i.e. the Conciliar claimant] ... means we are participating in such errors. On this point, all those who are faithful to Tradition are in agreement."
No, we most certainly are not in agreement. Those who assist at "una cum" Masses are not by that fact participating in any error contrary to faith or morals, nor are they responsible for any error of facts in the mind of the priest (such as whether there is currently a Pope), nor even for errors in faith that he might personally hold. The "non una cum" error is complete novelty and unfortunately very successfully deters many Traditional Catholics from contemplating that the Conciliar claimants are not popes and thus keeps them from the truth, since it calls the Traditional Mass that these faithful Catholics attend "a crime, a sacrilege, a mortal sin, capital schism, that is doesn't confer grace, that it is an insult to God, that it is equivalent to idolatry", which naturally scandalizes any such faithful Catholic who is seeking the truth (as it should) and makes him conclude that people who speak such things must be very far from the truth and from a Catholic spirit. He is, of course, *right*.
As for the subject of the article, to put the notion of a title in perspective, saying that the Conciliar putative popes have a title is akin to saying, e.g. that the Anglican usurpers of the Catholic See of Canterbury in the 16th century had a title, or a 12th century Greek Schismatic usurper of the See of Constantinople. What does it really say? Not much. They had no right at all to those sees, they were heretics and schismatics, they occupied the see illegitimately, they had no jurisdiction nor could they validly act in any way with regard to that office, neither to condemn or to establish anyone or anything, or to loose or bind in any way. They were as thieves and robbers. This is not my doctrine but that of the Fathers, Doctors and Popes (St. Jerome, St. Optatus, St. Cyprian, St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope St. Celestine I etc.). Also, their title is not properly "colored", it is "apparent", because the defect is not hidden but visible.
The reason why Fr. Coradello writes so much about a title is because he thinks (following Bp. des Lauriers) that the Conciliar claimants' material possession of the See preserves Apostolicity, which it doesn't because the Eastern Schismatics have material possession of many ancient Catholic sees as well, yet they are not Successors of the Apostles neither do their sects have Apostolicity (formal Apostolicity is required). Therefore, if the Thesis argues that there are only "materialiter" ordinaries in the Church, it is in reality arguing that the Church is no longer Apostolic, which is impossible.
The underlying reason why Bp. des Lauriers (and those who follow him) actually consider that the Conciliar claimants possess any sort of right with regard to the Apostolic See is because of his insistence that it takes a juridical sentence or declaration for anyone to become a public heretic (which is not what the Church demands, as Cardinal de Lugo says; also Fr. Coradello in footnote 31 mentions ecclesiastical censures, while a public heretic puts himself out of the Church by Divine Law). In reality, even though Bp. des Lauriers didn't recognize them to be that, the implication of his theory would be that public heretics were validly elected and had a right over the Apostolic See, which is, as we well know, impossible and contrary to Catholic doctrine.
The examples in the quote from Fr. Zapelena are not of habitual but supplied jurisdiction, which can be supplied to validate any act of jurisdiction to anyone (under certain conditions), but it is a jurisdiction that never actually stays with the minister, it is supplied just to make a particular act valid, for the good of souls. The minister never actually had any authority in the Church.
Fr. Coradello: "I am only pointing out that a heretic and a schismatic, whether secret or manifest, can have a false title that even allows them to have jurisdiction and some power and role in the Church"
To affirm that *manifest* heretics can have jurisdiction and power in the Church is the error of Cajetan, contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, contrary to reason (how can someone who is outside the Church have power in the Church?) and contrary to Canon 188 of the Code of Canon Law (and the Divine Law it interprets, just as the source of that Canon, "Cum ex Apostolatus").
I see from footnote 32 that apparently Bp. des Lauriers also held the error that the Church in a council is able to judge the Pope in some way (again an error of Cajetan), which is untenable, contrary to Papal Primacy and the canonical principle that the First See is judged by no one.
Could you please demonstrate where he holds 1. and 2.? I don’t read either in his comment above. Are you replying in the correct place?
I find that many thesis holders also hold the NUC position strange. If someone holds a title to the office, even if illegitimately then how could it be sinful to name them as the office holder? The Church hasn’t recognised that they aren’t legitimate and removed them from office. Catholics aren’t required to separate ourselves from undeclared public heretics unless they join an already condemned sect.
The NUC teaching is a novelty. It’s the sede equivalent of cooties. Our duty is to go to Mass, receive the sacraments and save our souls.
The idea that it is sinful or forbidden to attend a mass where the priest names someone who isn’t actually Pope in the canon, but whom he thinks is the Pope is a novelty. It isn’t found in Church teaching. The opposite is true with Ad Evitanda Scandala of Martin V which permits Catholics to receive the sacraments from even undeclared schismatics and heretics. This was meant for times like those in which we live.
During the great western schism no Saint had an issue with the faithful attending a mass in which any of the claimants were named and many supported claimants who were later ruled to be antiPopes.
Priests without missions to teach nor ordinary jurisdiction shouldn’t be making up new rules that put unsupportable burdens on Catholics whose duty is to save their souls, for which the sacraments are morally necessary.
Masses offered by priests affiliated with the SSPX are often the only option available to many and they should avail themselves of the sacraments God has provided for their salvation.
An error of fact is not a lie, just as an accidental death is not a suicide. The Pure Oblation of Christ is not a sacrilege, and there is nothing schismatic about a liturgy in which the priest prays for the person who he sincerely believes is the Pope (and has weighty reasons to do so, even though he is mistaken), just as during the Western Schism the Mass of St. Vincent Ferrer was neither schismatic nor sacrilegious, even though he named a probable antipope in the Canon (the same goes with the other priests like him), and no one ever had the insolence to claim such a thing.
It is the NUC error which is a sacrilege and an insult to God because of its grave irreverence towards the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
It is the NUC error which is schismatic and fomenting schism, because it separates from unity in worship with fellow Catholics, and it actively promotes this separation (the so-called "RCI" even punishes Catholics who observe unity of worship with sedeplenist Catholics by denying them communion as if they were non-Catholics or public sinners).
It is the NUC error which is evil and a crime against God, against Unity, and against souls.
It is the NUC error which is a lie and the work of the devil to take souls away from the Mass.
There is nothing more scandalous and offensive to pious ears in the whole Traditionalist milieu than this abominable error.
I pray God to forgive you, for I don't think you know what you do in promoting this evil.
The RCI and SGG say that attending Una Cum masses is sinful. The RCI will not give the holy communion to those who attend masses in which the false Popes are named. They break communion with others and are at risk of becoming a sect.
Bp Sanborn claims that masses in which a false Popes is named in the canon are “objectively schismatic.” The problem is that this isn’t a term or category defined by the Catholic Church. It is a hollow polemic because such masses don’t meet the Church’s criteria for what is a “schismatic mass.”
Ad Evitanda Scandala remains in force. Timorous souls can go to an Eastern Rite (Catholic) mass where the priest has been ordained by a valid bishop (this is the case for most but some small rites are under direct administrative control of the Vatican and they may not have valid orders anymore) and receive valid sacraments including communion consecrated in an unchanged Catholic rite.
They can and should go to confession with validly ordained SSPX priests and attend their masses where this is their best option.
You replied in the wrong place. It should have been to the comment above.
I've already learned a lot about the Thesis and I've read several explanations of it by sedeprivationist authors.
My DMs were not disdainful, I simply refused to engage in endless discussions and I wished you all the best (twice!), but some of your DMs were of a patronizing nature (would you like me to post all of our DMs here so everyone can see, or should we keep what is private private?).
I don't know what you consider an attack? Do you mean the demonstrative sarcasm in the first sentence? Or do you mean that I actually answered the questions you posed? That is not an attack, it is a public reply to your very public statements.
As for the rest of what you write, you don't seem to understand the way sedevacantism proceeds. We don't judge the internal forum at all, we judge if the words and actions of the claimants are heretical and whether they are aware of what the Church teaches in that specific matter (which is the way Catholics have proceeded since Apostolic times, this is how we are able to tell who is a Catholic and who is not), but even this we do only *after* we have already established that they cannot possibly be popes because it would violate the Indefectibility of the Church and of the Apostolic See.
It is sedeprivationism that judges the internal forum, specifically the intention that the claimants have in accepting the office, which is something that Catholics have *never* done in the history of the Church, for any office, for any bishop. If a person verbally accepts the episcopal or papal office, if he dresses in the vestments of a bishop or pope, if he publishes judgments as bishop or pope, it is presumed that he has the intention of accepting and holding that office, **because he has manifested it externally**. But you judge that because of the heresies he preaches and the bad laws he promulgates he doesn't actually have that intention, which is judging internals, with all the external evidence pointing to the opposite (that he has the intention of accepting and holding the office).
I think this is an important point. The Church, even in canon law relies on the judgement of external facts.
The thesis unusually looks at the internal forum which is impenetrable to all except God. Does it provide clarity? What were its fruits? What have they been?
First, to repeat the disclaimer from the article: "Disclaimer: Needless to say, neither our publication of this text, nor the IMBC’s gracious permission for us to do so, represents a wholesale endorsement or acceptance of each other’s positions."
1. Regarding the NUC issue, I agree with you.
2. You said:
"As for the subject of the article, to put the notion of a title in perspective, saying that the Conciliar putative popes have a title is akin to saying, e.g. that the Anglican usurpers of the Catholic See of Canterbury in the 16th century had a title, or a 12th century Greek Schismatic usurper of the See of Constantinople.
"What does it really say? Not much. They had no right at all to those sees, they were heretics and schismatics, they occupied the see illegitimately, they had no jurisdiction nor could they validly act in any way with regard to that office, neither to condemn or to establish anyone or anything, or to loose or bind in any way. They were as thieves and robbers. This is not my doctrine but that of the Fathers, Doctors and Popes (St. Jerome, St. Optatus, St. Cyprian, St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope St. Celestine I etc.)."
I'm not sure this is true. If those men have even putative titles – and I don't think they do in this context – they are to Sees which form part of condemned sects. This is very different to those who have putative titles to the See of Rome, or Westminster, etc..
3. You said:
"Also, their title is not properly "colored", it is "apparent", because the defect is not hidden but visible."
Yes, I think that Fr Coradello's description of a putative title is more appropriate for these men.
4. You said:
"The reason why Fr. Coradello writes so much about a title is because he thinks (following Bp. des Lauriers) that the Conciliar claimants' material possession of the See preserves Apostolicity, which it doesn't because the Eastern Schismatics have material possession of many ancient Catholic sees as well, yet they are not Successors of the Apostles neither do their sects have Apostolicity (formal Apostolicity is required). Therefore, if the Thesis argues that there are only "materialiter" ordinaries in the Church, it is in reality arguing that the Church is no longer Apostolic, which is impossible."
I have already stated why I think the material succession to Catholic sees is somewhat different to that of sees which form part of a condemned sect. Regarding apostolicity, I'm inclined to agree: I'm not sure, personally, how involved Mgr Guérard des Lauriers was with the idea that the Thesis accounts for the apostolicity of the Church. Maybe he was. Personally I think that there's quite a lot of value to what he wrote about this, and that he gets to the heart of a lot of things, but that the Thesis does not resolve the problem of the perpetuity of the hierarchy.
5. You said:
"The underlying reason why Bp. des Lauriers (and those who follow him) actually consider that the Conciliar claimants possess any sort of right with regard to the Apostolic See is because of his insistence that it takes a juridical sentence or declaration for anyone to become a public heretic (which is not what the Church demands, as Cardinal de Lugo says; also Fr. Coradello in footnote 31 mentions ecclesiastical censures, while a public heretic puts himself out of the Church by Divine Law). In reality, even though Bp. des Lauriers didn't recognize them to be that, the implication of his theory would be that public heretics were validly elected and had a right over the Apostolic See, which is, as we well know, impossible and contrary to Catholic doctrine."
I agree that the "juridical sentence is necessary in order for someone to cease to be a Catholic" position is false; however, I think there is a truth here, namely that someone who has ceased to be a Catholic and lost office, and yet nonetheless continues to materially/physically occupy the office does require a sentence, as per Can. 151, before he can be replaced; and that this seems to be because he has some sort of putative or invalid title – which is distinct from having no title at all.
6. You said:
"The examples in the quote from Fr. Zapelena are not of habitual but supplied jurisdiction, which can be supplied to validate any act of jurisdiction to anyone (under certain conditions), but it is a jurisdiction that never actually stays with the minister, it is supplied just to make a particular act valid, for the good of souls. The minister never actually had any authority in the Church.
"Fr. Coradello: "I am only pointing out that a heretic and a schismatic, whether secret or manifest, can have a false title that even allows them to have jurisdiction and some power and role in the Church"
"To affirm that *manifest* heretics can have jurisdiction and power in the Church is the error of Cajetan, contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, contrary to reason (how can someone who is outside the Church have power in the Church?) and contrary to Canon 188 of the Code of Canon Law (and the Divine Law it interprets, just as the source of that Canon, "Cum ex Apostolatus")."
I think Fr Coradello's "jurisdiction and some power and role in the Church" refers to jurisdiction supplied on an act by act basis, even if that is not what Zapalena was saying. At least, that is the only form that I could accept.
7. You said:
"I see from footnote 32 that apparently Bp. des Lauriers also held the error that the Church in a council is able to judge the Pope in some way (again an error of Cajetan), which is untenable, contrary to Papal Primacy and the canonical principle that the First See is judged by no one."
The cited text says:
“If the ‘pope’ abjures his error, it is up to the Conclave to ‘decide’ the alternative: either this repentant ‘pope’ returns to being Pope formaliter; or, in accordance with the Bull of Paul IV, this ‘pope’ has alienated himself from the ability to become Pope formaliter, ability which had been conferred on him BEFORE THE CHURCH, by being regularly elected by a valid Conclave. The Church never judges the Pope. But it is up to the Church [a Conclave convened by the hierarchical body of residential bishops who fully profess the Catholic Faith] to decide whether, YES or NO, there exists in the repentant ‘pope’ a ‘canonical revival’ of the aptitude to be Pope. Thus the Church judges in the ‘pope’ only what, in the latter, formally pertains to the Church”
Mgr GDL's usage always has "pope" refer to a man who is not the Pope formaliter; in other words, he is not the Pope. As such, I am not sure that this text entails "the error that the Church in a council is able to judge the Pope in some way"; rather, it entails that a Council is able to judge the man who is in some way the "pope" – as Bellarmine seems to say of a doubtful Pope. How much more for a man whom we can see is not the Pope (in Thesis terms, "not the Pope formaliter"?)
S.D. Wright: "If those men have even putative titles – and I don't think they do in this context – they are to Sees which form part of condemned sects. This is very different to those who have putative titles to the See of Rome, or Westminster, etc."
Perhaps some of them do have apparent titles, e.g. the ancient See of Constantinople (are there sources which teach the opposite?). Obviously it is not a perfect analogy, but I specifically mentioned the very beginning of those sects, when the situation was not yet of an established sect with its own institutions, but of heretics and schismatics usurping a Catholic See and proceeding as if they had the right to it and as if there was perfect continuity, which is more in line with what is happening during this Crisis.
"I think there is a truth here, namely that someone who has ceased to be a Catholic and lost office, and yet nonetheless continues to materially/physically occupy the office does require a sentence, as per Can. 151, before he can be replaced ..."
I agree.
" ... before he can be replaced; and that this seems to be because he has some sort of putative or invalid title – which is distinct from having no title at all."
You or I have no title at all. He has an apparent title because he is usurping the See that he no longer holds (or that he never did hold).
"Mgr GDL's usage always has 'pope' refer to a man who is not the Pope formaliter; in other words, he is not the Pope. As such, I am not sure that this text entails "the error that the Church in a council is able to judge the Pope in some way"; rather, it entails that a Council is able to judge the man who is in some way the 'pope' – as Bellarmine seems to say of a doubtful Pope. How much more for a man whom we can see is not the Pope (in Thesis terms, 'not the Pope formaliter'?)"
This is a very tricky thing. According to Billot, a doubtful pope is actually not a pope at all, and this is precisely why the Church can judge him (De Ecclesia Christi, 454). An antipope is no pope at all. A false pope (such as a public heretic) is no pope at all. But a "materialiter pope" I think is a different animal, where he (according to the hypothesis) actually has a valid election and a right to the Apostolic See. Thus, in judging him and pronouncing him to be deposed the Church would actually be judging the Roman Pontiff-elect (and taking away that right), which is not possible. Of course, the whole matter is academic because the idea is a complete novelty, and according to Canon Law, from the moment he accepts he receives all the power of the office. The only impediment to this that the Church recognizes is if he is insane, or underage, or a woman, or a heretic.
"Thus, in judging him and pronouncing him to be deposed the Church would actually be judging the Roman Pontiff-elect (and taking away that right), which is not possible. Of course, the whole matter is academic because the idea is a complete novelty, and according to Canon Law, from the moment he accepts he receives all the power of the office. The only impediment to this that the Church recognizes is if he is insane, or underage, or a woman, or a heretic."
Why is it impossible to judge the Pope-elect? He is not the Pope.
Indeed, he is the Pope from the moment he accepts the office; but two analogies are relevant. First, if he did not intend to accept episcopal consecration, his initial and apparent "acceptance" would be no such thing. Second, we know that someone can apparently accept another in marriage, while actually not doing so; and that the Church can judge this situation.
The Pope materialiter ("pope") is not the Pope; nor, at least in our circumstances, is this doubtful. So he is even more judicable than a doubtful Pope.
"Why is it impossible to judge the Pope-elect? He is not the Pope.
Indeed, he is the Pope from the moment he accepts the office; but two analogies are relevant. First, if he did not intend to accept episcopal consecration, his initial and apparent "acceptance" would be no such thing."
That's right, his internal intention to accept the Pontificate would be vitiated because being a consecrated bishop is a vital part of the papal office, but the Church wouldn't know about it until he actually refused consecration. So does any canonist say what would happen in that case?
**Added these two paragraphs below upon further reflection**: I can see why this example you gave logically indicates that in such a situation, if the Pope-elect were to obstinately refuse consecration, the Church would probably have no choice but to nullify the election, which means that she would indeed be judging the Pope-elect. I must commend you and thank you, it is actually a great example to show this. I must concede then that it does *seem* that the Church can judge a Pope-elect, before he accepts his election, or if it is proven that his acceptance was vitiated by a contrary internal intention. But I would like to see an opinion of a pre-Conciliar canonist or theologian which supports such a conclusion.
However, it still doesn't apply to the Thesis because promulgating harmful laws and teaching error does not indicate that the person did not have the intention of accepting the Papacy, or that he does not have the intention of the good of the Church. He might have that intention, and simply be mistaken about what is good for the Church. We simply do not know because it is internal. In short, being a bad Pope (or "pope") doesn't mean one doesn't have the intention to be Pope, otherwise a lot of the past Roman Pontiffs would have be to stricken from the list of Popes. This is essentially what the Thesis claims, because it doesn't claim that they are heretics, therefore they are bad "popes", who are not really Popes because they are bad.
"Second, we know that someone can apparently accept another in marriage, while actually not doing so; and that the Church can judge this situation."
You mean if he has a contrary internal intention? The Church actually is not able to know that, unless he somehow externally manifests that contrary intention.
I don't see what these examples have to do with the Thesis. If any of the putative popes had an internal intention not to receive the Pontificate, they never manifested it openly.
@s.d.wright after reading this article should we be referring to Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis I and Leo XIV with the prefix of AntiPope?
The article argues that they have a coloured title, but not real authority. Wouldn’t it be practically more useful to convince faithful Catholics that AntiPope is the appropriate label rather than continue battles between R&R, Sede and Conservatives who still think the conciliar sect and its programs come from the Catholic Church?
We can call them antipopes, but false popes is more appropriate because an antipope is someone who claims the Papacy in opposition to a true pope, and that is not the case now.
Actually, Benedict V was a true Pope, and Leo VIII was an antipope until Benedict V renounced the Papacy by submitting to an invalid deposition, if that is what happened (we are not certain). If he didn't submit, then he remained Pope and Leo remained an antipope.
One may register a cat for a dog race convincing punters that this is fine due to the " 'hidden' defect "– it’s a manifest cat – but, the defect not withstanding, the feline may choose to be a dog some day, like any self-identified liberated animal, then, by golly, ‘habeamus canem!’
And still, in registers so according to law (or right or what should we call it) it would result as a dog, until the bureaucracy, legal error is not corrected
This is true and it presents the question, who has the authority to declare that a cat is, in fact, a cat? Seriously, they would argue that a cat is never a dog but a man can become a Catholic; for the purposes, however, of papal election BEING a Catholic is no accident. Before God, it cannot be One or Holy or Catholic or Apostolic to declare that a public heretic is legal tender for the papacy; a claim made to appease the appetite of an outdated Thesis. If Abp Guerard des Lauriers were alive today to witness the progression of the V2 institution and its leaders, he could not possibly continue to defend his earlier thoughts.
and who had the authority that a married priest is a married priest (and so, he cannot be a parish priest)? or that an impotent is impotent (and so, they are unable to marry)? or that a heretic is a heretic (and so, he cannot receive a position in the Church)?
These facts are facts – and yet, the answer is always: only an ecclesiastical authority can do so;
until then, for the law, the married priest remains legally designated (although all the village knows of his “marriage”!)
the impotent remains legally bound to that woman (although the marriage does not exist)
the heretic holds a title to that position
(be it a true, a coloured, or a putative title)
(All these examples are in the article)
2. About what you say on Bp. Guérard de Lauriers: he had seen enough, up to 1988 when he died. Vatican II's abominations juat change in degree, substantially they are the same.
A married priest is still a member of the Church. The examples fail because heresy excludes membership in the Church, so notions of liceity don’t arise because they are not applicable.
“Vatican II's abominations just changed in degree, substantially they are the same.” It can take a ramping up of the obvious for otherwise clouded vision to become clear.
“...remains legally designated.” Again, the problem with this is the starting point. A public heretic is not even a member of the Church (Mystici Corporis, Pius XII, 1943) and not valid matter for the papacy. Constitution Cum ex apostolatus officio (Paul IV, 1559), makes this plain and it was not put in the rubbish in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (as some people who don’t read the footnotes try to assert (canon 188 no.4)) but rather it was reaffirmed : a heretic can never be validly elected pope. So even before getting to ‘liceity’ you have an invalid election at the get go.
It seems to me this matter of ordinary jurisdiction and formal apostolicity is the one argument which no variant of sedevacantism has an answer for (except the conclavists, but they incur other problems).
All other conciliar objections find sufficient and theologically persuasive responses (and most of them right here on the WM Review), but not this one.
And as such an absolutely critical issue remains unanswered, I remain a sede-doubtist.
The obvious suggestion is that sedes might be wrong:
If it is true that I cannot see how a public heretic, who is not a member of the Church, can be its head, neither can I understand how we can accept that formal apostolicity and ordinary jurisdiction are retained, despite not being able to identify anyone possessing them.
I do understand Sean has explained how visibility can be obscured, and require diligence to find the true Church, but as regards formal apostolicity and ordinary jurisdiction, it seems that no amount of diligence from anyone on the planet has been able to point to a single bishop possessing them in decades.
I sometimes myself point to the eastern rite bishops, as they retain their traditional rites, but doctrinally I’m not aware of any rejecting conciliarism. They’re just less well known.
As I’m sure you’re aware, not having found a persuasive response to this doesn’t undo all the other arguments and somehow prove the alternative is correct – as some seem to think.
I’m sorry that you don’t find the account generally advanced on WM for it sufficient. Where do you think it is lacking?
Specifically, I think it would be helpful to identify even one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction (or conversely, explain why it is not necessary that anyone should be able to do so).
Sean Johnson: "...neither can I understand how we can accept that formal apostolicity and ordinary jurisdiction are retained, despite not being able to identify anyone possessing them."
It is true that this issue - that we have not yet identified anyone by name who is certainly a true Ordinary - poses a problem (though this is better for those bishops, because if we identified them, they would certainly be persecuted by the usurpers - this is why I wouldn't publicly reveal their names if I knew them, which I don't). Just like you, I used to be R&R so I recognize the instinct to be hesitant (BTW, I remember you from various fora and I must commend you, because there are few who have the character and the love of the truth to publicly admit that they were wrong). But we are obliged to believe that formal Apostolicity and ordinary jurisdiction are retained anyway, because we know this from the infallible statement of Vatican I and other Catholic teaching (that there will be shepherds and teachers, that the Church's Divine Constitution cannot change etc). Nowhere does it say we have to be able to explain every doctrine that the Church proposes us to believe, but we have to accept them and believe, because God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, has revealed them to her. I think this is probably what Mr. Wright was referring to.
"...it seems that no amount of diligence from anyone on the planet has been able to point to a single bishop possessing them in decades."
Well, the list of all the Conciliar ordinaries is available online, so the true ordinaries are certainly on it, we just haven't yet found those of them who are certainly not public heretics (because if they are public heretics, they lost or never received the office), and I think the reason is that *nobody even tried*. Even if we limit ourselves to Eastern rite bishops, it would be so hard to go over the statements of every single one of them, since there is over 350 of them, and we would have to tackle all kinds of exotic languages that 99% of us know nothing about. OTOH, if you want to cover just the ordinaries in the US, then there is about 450 of them, which includes those that are retired (their resignation is invalid by law because it needs to be accepted by a legitimate superior - the Pope). So if you wish to know, go ahead and check their statements for heresy, which would perhaps be useful but actually not at all necessary, since we are only obliged to know the names of our own parish priest, our own ordinary, and the Pope. And if those three guys are public heretics, then we are as sheep without a shepherd (as most of us are), but it does not mean that there are no shepherds in another country, in another region. And the sheep there know them. They may be bad shepherds, careless, they may not sound the alarm to warn of the wolves, they may be cowards who are afraid to fight the wolves, they may let the sheep stray, or may even stray themselves, but none of this makes them wolves (public heretics).
If it helps to understand our situation with regard to visibility, just imagine the situation during the persecutions in the first few centuries. Rarely did the faithful know the names of priests or bishops outside their area, and sometimes they wouldn't even know the name of the Pope.
"I sometimes myself point to the eastern rite bishops, as they retain their traditional rites, but doctrinally I’m not aware of any rejecting conciliarism."
As I said above, they may not sound the alarm, they may be silent, but that doesn't make them wolves, just bad shepherds, and we were not promised to always have *good* shepherds, just that there would be shepherds.
During the Arian Crisis, most of the Eastern bishops defected, and while most of the Western bishops didn't defect, the great majority were silent because they feared the Emperor, they feared persecution and exile. Why can't it be the other way round today? The West is now even more desolate than the East was then, these are by and large effectively missionary lands. And trad priests are like missionaries roaming those lands and giving sacraments to the few scattered Catholics surrounded everywhere by pagans.
Sean, does the thesis fit in with scholastic philosophy or is it coming from a modern philosophical mindset?
I ask because the thesis seems to posit the reason for these men not being formally Popes as being an internal disposition.
However Aquinas would say that human theories need to be grounded in what is knowable to human reason. The internal forum is only knowable to God; therefore it cannot serve as a basis for human judgement or explanation.
How can Catholics entertain this theory if it is reliant upon judgements of the internal forum?
If it isn’t based on scholastic philosophy then should we even be considering it?
I think it's best to read Bishop GDL in original. There's a lot of confusion around this because the main proponents of the Thesis in the Anglosphere have a particular way of expressing it, and that isn't always reflective of what he wrote.
None of those articles adresses the authenticity of the letter proven by the shorthand tests.
It would be better if the fanatic crowd of Bp. Guérard des Lauriers explains really this issue rather than equating him recklessy with St. Thomas himself.
Mr. Rémy already explained the context of the letter which is simply denied by Fr. Ricossa with zero arguments
Read those articles and you will see that »after« the date of that »ambiguous« letter, on several occasions Bp. Guérard des Lauriers »publicly« affirmed his Thesis, and he affirmed it on his deathbed
And still, in registers so according to law (or right or what should we call it) it would result as a dog, until the bureaucracy, legal error is not corrected
I am increasingly agreeing with much of what you wrote there. Thanks.
Mrs Wright is my wife ;)
Yes, the way to prove that the Thesis is not too complicated is definitely with a huge complicated post.
You ask why do we care about what Prevost says or does? We care about what he personally says or does just as much as we care about the words and acts of any heretic. The reason why we talk about him so much is because he is mistakenly thought of as being the Pope by billions, incl. many Catholics, and this gives him an influence over the faithful which allows him to do much evil. This is why we care. The only power that he has is that many people think he is the Pope. That's it. He is neither Pope formally, nor materially (no such thing, complete novelty), just a public heretic who instead of obeying the judgment of the Catholic Magisterium, replaces it with his own, and of his Modernist sect.
"What Fr. Guérard des Lauriers did was to pinpoint exactly what is that 'something' of the Papacy that Prevost possesses and that the other guy does not possess."
Do you want to know what he possesses, what makes him different than the "garage pope"? The appearance, and common error. That's it. Don't believe me? Okay, first try to imagine we are living in a Catholic time (like the Middle Ages). Now, take away his appearance of being pope by making his and his predecessors' heresies known as being against the Faith to the entire Catholic world. Next, imagine that the entire Catholic world learns that the Fathers and Doctors teach that a publicly heretical Pope has no authority or power. What would be the result? Catholics would cease to recognize him en masse and demand of their bishops to cease recognizing him and to remove him. What would that leave for Prevost? Nothing.
I think that the thesis exists purely to try and explain how Apostolic Succession continues with the extended vacancy of the Holy See, when we know common error can supply jurisdiction to the actions of AntiPopes where they are for the good of the Church and that ordinary jurisdiction attached to offices created by a true Pope is given to the occupant of the office when he ascends to it. Many Eastern rite bishops have certainly valid orders, are elected by their own rite and can continue Apostolic Succession in the Church by being appointed by an antiPope under common error.
I think both the thesis and totalism are wrong because of what the Church teaches about herself.
I think the thesis is sold as a solution to a perceived problem with Apostolic Succession in recent times. I don’t think it was necessary when it was written.
I disagree, John, when you say: "I think that the thesis exists purely to try and explain how Apostolic Succession continues with the extended vacancy of the Holy See"
This is how it is sold in the English-speaking world. But I think it actually exists as Mgr GDL's explanation for the situation of the papacy, and that in formulating it he expressed a number of interesting and helpful insights.
It was said to me recently by an associate who holds to the Thesis:
"As long as you admit the body of the Thesis, which is the notion of being Pope materially and being Pope formally, and that the Apostolic See has been formally vacant since at least December 8th, 1965, then in principle you hold the Thesis. Everything beyond that is either a theological conclusion derived from it or polemical writings (e.g. una cum)."
That definition obviously has no binding force – because there is no organ to authoritatively determine what is and is not "The Thesis" – but it's interesting that there was nothing there about "explaining how apostolic succession continues."
So basically the thesis is being used by people for their own purposes and what is presented to us is often an extension of what was originally proposed, kind of like the sede position itself.
It’d be nice to read the original, rather than expanded versions written later.
Except that the “thesis” is a complete novelty unknown in the history of the Church.
If he’s a public heretic, and therefore severed from the Church, then the guy at the Canadian log cabin has a better claim than Prevost does (at least until he declares himself pope).
No, I meant it seriously: Roy is still part of the Catholic Church (for now), whereas Prevost is not. That may change, unfortunately, but for the moment I should hope it’s pretty obvious.
That would make +Guérard des Lauriers an excommunicate as well. And he is the source of your opinions.
It has been my experience through the years that some people just should not be dealing with Theology or Canon Law. If there is no Roman Pontiff, then one obviously cannot get his permission. A basic principle of Canon Law is that if the law becomes impossible or extremely difficult to observe, the obligation ceases to bind. Btw, that's twice that I've had to explain basic legal principles to you. The first was that if there is no criminal, there is no crime (with regard to the NUC).
I only 'care' what Prevost says in as much as I have to keep explaining to those who accuse 'My Catholic Faith', that he isn't Catholic, let alone a pope.
Fr. Coradello: "It follows that ... to assist at a Mass in union with him [with someone who is not a Pope, i.e. the Conciliar claimant] ... means we are participating in such errors. On this point, all those who are faithful to Tradition are in agreement."
No, we most certainly are not in agreement. Those who assist at "una cum" Masses are not by that fact participating in any error contrary to faith or morals, nor are they responsible for any error of facts in the mind of the priest (such as whether there is currently a Pope), nor even for errors in faith that he might personally hold. The "non una cum" error is complete novelty and unfortunately very successfully deters many Traditional Catholics from contemplating that the Conciliar claimants are not popes and thus keeps them from the truth, since it calls the Traditional Mass that these faithful Catholics attend "a crime, a sacrilege, a mortal sin, capital schism, that is doesn't confer grace, that it is an insult to God, that it is equivalent to idolatry", which naturally scandalizes any such faithful Catholic who is seeking the truth (as it should) and makes him conclude that people who speak such things must be very far from the truth and from a Catholic spirit. He is, of course, *right*.
As for the subject of the article, to put the notion of a title in perspective, saying that the Conciliar putative popes have a title is akin to saying, e.g. that the Anglican usurpers of the Catholic See of Canterbury in the 16th century had a title, or a 12th century Greek Schismatic usurper of the See of Constantinople. What does it really say? Not much. They had no right at all to those sees, they were heretics and schismatics, they occupied the see illegitimately, they had no jurisdiction nor could they validly act in any way with regard to that office, neither to condemn or to establish anyone or anything, or to loose or bind in any way. They were as thieves and robbers. This is not my doctrine but that of the Fathers, Doctors and Popes (St. Jerome, St. Optatus, St. Cyprian, St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope St. Celestine I etc.). Also, their title is not properly "colored", it is "apparent", because the defect is not hidden but visible.
The reason why Fr. Coradello writes so much about a title is because he thinks (following Bp. des Lauriers) that the Conciliar claimants' material possession of the See preserves Apostolicity, which it doesn't because the Eastern Schismatics have material possession of many ancient Catholic sees as well, yet they are not Successors of the Apostles neither do their sects have Apostolicity (formal Apostolicity is required). Therefore, if the Thesis argues that there are only "materialiter" ordinaries in the Church, it is in reality arguing that the Church is no longer Apostolic, which is impossible.
The underlying reason why Bp. des Lauriers (and those who follow him) actually consider that the Conciliar claimants possess any sort of right with regard to the Apostolic See is because of his insistence that it takes a juridical sentence or declaration for anyone to become a public heretic (which is not what the Church demands, as Cardinal de Lugo says; also Fr. Coradello in footnote 31 mentions ecclesiastical censures, while a public heretic puts himself out of the Church by Divine Law). In reality, even though Bp. des Lauriers didn't recognize them to be that, the implication of his theory would be that public heretics were validly elected and had a right over the Apostolic See, which is, as we well know, impossible and contrary to Catholic doctrine.
The examples in the quote from Fr. Zapelena are not of habitual but supplied jurisdiction, which can be supplied to validate any act of jurisdiction to anyone (under certain conditions), but it is a jurisdiction that never actually stays with the minister, it is supplied just to make a particular act valid, for the good of souls. The minister never actually had any authority in the Church.
Fr. Coradello: "I am only pointing out that a heretic and a schismatic, whether secret or manifest, can have a false title that even allows them to have jurisdiction and some power and role in the Church"
To affirm that *manifest* heretics can have jurisdiction and power in the Church is the error of Cajetan, contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, contrary to reason (how can someone who is outside the Church have power in the Church?) and contrary to Canon 188 of the Code of Canon Law (and the Divine Law it interprets, just as the source of that Canon, "Cum ex Apostolatus").
I see from footnote 32 that apparently Bp. des Lauriers also held the error that the Church in a council is able to judge the Pope in some way (again an error of Cajetan), which is untenable, contrary to Papal Primacy and the canonical principle that the First See is judged by no one.
Could you please demonstrate where he holds 1. and 2.? I don’t read either in his comment above. Are you replying in the correct place?
I find that many thesis holders also hold the NUC position strange. If someone holds a title to the office, even if illegitimately then how could it be sinful to name them as the office holder? The Church hasn’t recognised that they aren’t legitimate and removed them from office. Catholics aren’t required to separate ourselves from undeclared public heretics unless they join an already condemned sect.
The NUC teaching is a novelty. It’s the sede equivalent of cooties. Our duty is to go to Mass, receive the sacraments and save our souls.
The idea that it is sinful or forbidden to attend a mass where the priest names someone who isn’t actually Pope in the canon, but whom he thinks is the Pope is a novelty. It isn’t found in Church teaching. The opposite is true with Ad Evitanda Scandala of Martin V which permits Catholics to receive the sacraments from even undeclared schismatics and heretics. This was meant for times like those in which we live.
During the great western schism no Saint had an issue with the faithful attending a mass in which any of the claimants were named and many supported claimants who were later ruled to be antiPopes.
Priests without missions to teach nor ordinary jurisdiction shouldn’t be making up new rules that put unsupportable burdens on Catholics whose duty is to save their souls, for which the sacraments are morally necessary.
Masses offered by priests affiliated with the SSPX are often the only option available to many and they should avail themselves of the sacraments God has provided for their salvation.
An error of fact is not a lie, just as an accidental death is not a suicide. The Pure Oblation of Christ is not a sacrilege, and there is nothing schismatic about a liturgy in which the priest prays for the person who he sincerely believes is the Pope (and has weighty reasons to do so, even though he is mistaken), just as during the Western Schism the Mass of St. Vincent Ferrer was neither schismatic nor sacrilegious, even though he named a probable antipope in the Canon (the same goes with the other priests like him), and no one ever had the insolence to claim such a thing.
It is the NUC error which is a sacrilege and an insult to God because of its grave irreverence towards the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
It is the NUC error which is schismatic and fomenting schism, because it separates from unity in worship with fellow Catholics, and it actively promotes this separation (the so-called "RCI" even punishes Catholics who observe unity of worship with sedeplenist Catholics by denying them communion as if they were non-Catholics or public sinners).
It is the NUC error which is evil and a crime against God, against Unity, and against souls.
It is the NUC error which is a lie and the work of the devil to take souls away from the Mass.
There is nothing more scandalous and offensive to pious ears in the whole Traditionalist milieu than this abominable error.
I pray God to forgive you, for I don't think you know what you do in promoting this evil.
The RCI and SGG say that attending Una Cum masses is sinful. The RCI will not give the holy communion to those who attend masses in which the false Popes are named. They break communion with others and are at risk of becoming a sect.
Bp Sanborn claims that masses in which a false Popes is named in the canon are “objectively schismatic.” The problem is that this isn’t a term or category defined by the Catholic Church. It is a hollow polemic because such masses don’t meet the Church’s criteria for what is a “schismatic mass.”
When it comes to Church teaching Bp Sanborn has no leg to stand when it comes to the true meaning of the names in the canon and he knows it and has conceded in writing that he has gotten it wrong: https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2842/sanborn-concedes-different-meaning-claim
Ad Evitanda Scandala remains in force. Timorous souls can go to an Eastern Rite (Catholic) mass where the priest has been ordained by a valid bishop (this is the case for most but some small rites are under direct administrative control of the Vatican and they may not have valid orders anymore) and receive valid sacraments including communion consecrated in an unchanged Catholic rite.
They can and should go to confession with validly ordained SSPX priests and attend their masses where this is their best option.
You replied in the wrong place. It should have been to the comment above.
I've already learned a lot about the Thesis and I've read several explanations of it by sedeprivationist authors.
My DMs were not disdainful, I simply refused to engage in endless discussions and I wished you all the best (twice!), but some of your DMs were of a patronizing nature (would you like me to post all of our DMs here so everyone can see, or should we keep what is private private?).
I don't know what you consider an attack? Do you mean the demonstrative sarcasm in the first sentence? Or do you mean that I actually answered the questions you posed? That is not an attack, it is a public reply to your very public statements.
As for the rest of what you write, you don't seem to understand the way sedevacantism proceeds. We don't judge the internal forum at all, we judge if the words and actions of the claimants are heretical and whether they are aware of what the Church teaches in that specific matter (which is the way Catholics have proceeded since Apostolic times, this is how we are able to tell who is a Catholic and who is not), but even this we do only *after* we have already established that they cannot possibly be popes because it would violate the Indefectibility of the Church and of the Apostolic See.
It is sedeprivationism that judges the internal forum, specifically the intention that the claimants have in accepting the office, which is something that Catholics have *never* done in the history of the Church, for any office, for any bishop. If a person verbally accepts the episcopal or papal office, if he dresses in the vestments of a bishop or pope, if he publishes judgments as bishop or pope, it is presumed that he has the intention of accepting and holding that office, **because he has manifested it externally**. But you judge that because of the heresies he preaches and the bad laws he promulgates he doesn't actually have that intention, which is judging internals, with all the external evidence pointing to the opposite (that he has the intention of accepting and holding the office).
I think this is an important point. The Church, even in canon law relies on the judgement of external facts.
The thesis unusually looks at the internal forum which is impenetrable to all except God. Does it provide clarity? What were its fruits? What have they been?
First, to repeat the disclaimer from the article: "Disclaimer: Needless to say, neither our publication of this text, nor the IMBC’s gracious permission for us to do so, represents a wholesale endorsement or acceptance of each other’s positions."
1. Regarding the NUC issue, I agree with you.
2. You said:
"As for the subject of the article, to put the notion of a title in perspective, saying that the Conciliar putative popes have a title is akin to saying, e.g. that the Anglican usurpers of the Catholic See of Canterbury in the 16th century had a title, or a 12th century Greek Schismatic usurper of the See of Constantinople.
"What does it really say? Not much. They had no right at all to those sees, they were heretics and schismatics, they occupied the see illegitimately, they had no jurisdiction nor could they validly act in any way with regard to that office, neither to condemn or to establish anyone or anything, or to loose or bind in any way. They were as thieves and robbers. This is not my doctrine but that of the Fathers, Doctors and Popes (St. Jerome, St. Optatus, St. Cyprian, St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope St. Celestine I etc.)."
I'm not sure this is true. If those men have even putative titles – and I don't think they do in this context – they are to Sees which form part of condemned sects. This is very different to those who have putative titles to the See of Rome, or Westminster, etc..
3. You said:
"Also, their title is not properly "colored", it is "apparent", because the defect is not hidden but visible."
Yes, I think that Fr Coradello's description of a putative title is more appropriate for these men.
4. You said:
"The reason why Fr. Coradello writes so much about a title is because he thinks (following Bp. des Lauriers) that the Conciliar claimants' material possession of the See preserves Apostolicity, which it doesn't because the Eastern Schismatics have material possession of many ancient Catholic sees as well, yet they are not Successors of the Apostles neither do their sects have Apostolicity (formal Apostolicity is required). Therefore, if the Thesis argues that there are only "materialiter" ordinaries in the Church, it is in reality arguing that the Church is no longer Apostolic, which is impossible."
I have already stated why I think the material succession to Catholic sees is somewhat different to that of sees which form part of a condemned sect. Regarding apostolicity, I'm inclined to agree: I'm not sure, personally, how involved Mgr Guérard des Lauriers was with the idea that the Thesis accounts for the apostolicity of the Church. Maybe he was. Personally I think that there's quite a lot of value to what he wrote about this, and that he gets to the heart of a lot of things, but that the Thesis does not resolve the problem of the perpetuity of the hierarchy.
5. You said:
"The underlying reason why Bp. des Lauriers (and those who follow him) actually consider that the Conciliar claimants possess any sort of right with regard to the Apostolic See is because of his insistence that it takes a juridical sentence or declaration for anyone to become a public heretic (which is not what the Church demands, as Cardinal de Lugo says; also Fr. Coradello in footnote 31 mentions ecclesiastical censures, while a public heretic puts himself out of the Church by Divine Law). In reality, even though Bp. des Lauriers didn't recognize them to be that, the implication of his theory would be that public heretics were validly elected and had a right over the Apostolic See, which is, as we well know, impossible and contrary to Catholic doctrine."
I agree that the "juridical sentence is necessary in order for someone to cease to be a Catholic" position is false; however, I think there is a truth here, namely that someone who has ceased to be a Catholic and lost office, and yet nonetheless continues to materially/physically occupy the office does require a sentence, as per Can. 151, before he can be replaced; and that this seems to be because he has some sort of putative or invalid title – which is distinct from having no title at all.
6. You said:
"The examples in the quote from Fr. Zapelena are not of habitual but supplied jurisdiction, which can be supplied to validate any act of jurisdiction to anyone (under certain conditions), but it is a jurisdiction that never actually stays with the minister, it is supplied just to make a particular act valid, for the good of souls. The minister never actually had any authority in the Church.
"Fr. Coradello: "I am only pointing out that a heretic and a schismatic, whether secret or manifest, can have a false title that even allows them to have jurisdiction and some power and role in the Church"
"To affirm that *manifest* heretics can have jurisdiction and power in the Church is the error of Cajetan, contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, contrary to reason (how can someone who is outside the Church have power in the Church?) and contrary to Canon 188 of the Code of Canon Law (and the Divine Law it interprets, just as the source of that Canon, "Cum ex Apostolatus")."
I think Fr Coradello's "jurisdiction and some power and role in the Church" refers to jurisdiction supplied on an act by act basis, even if that is not what Zapalena was saying. At least, that is the only form that I could accept.
7. You said:
"I see from footnote 32 that apparently Bp. des Lauriers also held the error that the Church in a council is able to judge the Pope in some way (again an error of Cajetan), which is untenable, contrary to Papal Primacy and the canonical principle that the First See is judged by no one."
The cited text says:
“If the ‘pope’ abjures his error, it is up to the Conclave to ‘decide’ the alternative: either this repentant ‘pope’ returns to being Pope formaliter; or, in accordance with the Bull of Paul IV, this ‘pope’ has alienated himself from the ability to become Pope formaliter, ability which had been conferred on him BEFORE THE CHURCH, by being regularly elected by a valid Conclave. The Church never judges the Pope. But it is up to the Church [a Conclave convened by the hierarchical body of residential bishops who fully profess the Catholic Faith] to decide whether, YES or NO, there exists in the repentant ‘pope’ a ‘canonical revival’ of the aptitude to be Pope. Thus the Church judges in the ‘pope’ only what, in the latter, formally pertains to the Church”
Mgr GDL's usage always has "pope" refer to a man who is not the Pope formaliter; in other words, he is not the Pope. As such, I am not sure that this text entails "the error that the Church in a council is able to judge the Pope in some way"; rather, it entails that a Council is able to judge the man who is in some way the "pope" – as Bellarmine seems to say of a doubtful Pope. How much more for a man whom we can see is not the Pope (in Thesis terms, "not the Pope formaliter"?)
A lot of interest here. Thanks.
S.D. Wright: "If those men have even putative titles – and I don't think they do in this context – they are to Sees which form part of condemned sects. This is very different to those who have putative titles to the See of Rome, or Westminster, etc."
Perhaps some of them do have apparent titles, e.g. the ancient See of Constantinople (are there sources which teach the opposite?). Obviously it is not a perfect analogy, but I specifically mentioned the very beginning of those sects, when the situation was not yet of an established sect with its own institutions, but of heretics and schismatics usurping a Catholic See and proceeding as if they had the right to it and as if there was perfect continuity, which is more in line with what is happening during this Crisis.
"I think there is a truth here, namely that someone who has ceased to be a Catholic and lost office, and yet nonetheless continues to materially/physically occupy the office does require a sentence, as per Can. 151, before he can be replaced ..."
I agree.
" ... before he can be replaced; and that this seems to be because he has some sort of putative or invalid title – which is distinct from having no title at all."
You or I have no title at all. He has an apparent title because he is usurping the See that he no longer holds (or that he never did hold).
"Mgr GDL's usage always has 'pope' refer to a man who is not the Pope formaliter; in other words, he is not the Pope. As such, I am not sure that this text entails "the error that the Church in a council is able to judge the Pope in some way"; rather, it entails that a Council is able to judge the man who is in some way the 'pope' – as Bellarmine seems to say of a doubtful Pope. How much more for a man whom we can see is not the Pope (in Thesis terms, 'not the Pope formaliter'?)"
This is a very tricky thing. According to Billot, a doubtful pope is actually not a pope at all, and this is precisely why the Church can judge him (De Ecclesia Christi, 454). An antipope is no pope at all. A false pope (such as a public heretic) is no pope at all. But a "materialiter pope" I think is a different animal, where he (according to the hypothesis) actually has a valid election and a right to the Apostolic See. Thus, in judging him and pronouncing him to be deposed the Church would actually be judging the Roman Pontiff-elect (and taking away that right), which is not possible. Of course, the whole matter is academic because the idea is a complete novelty, and according to Canon Law, from the moment he accepts he receives all the power of the office. The only impediment to this that the Church recognizes is if he is insane, or underage, or a woman, or a heretic.
I'm not sure there, Peregrinus:
"Thus, in judging him and pronouncing him to be deposed the Church would actually be judging the Roman Pontiff-elect (and taking away that right), which is not possible. Of course, the whole matter is academic because the idea is a complete novelty, and according to Canon Law, from the moment he accepts he receives all the power of the office. The only impediment to this that the Church recognizes is if he is insane, or underage, or a woman, or a heretic."
Why is it impossible to judge the Pope-elect? He is not the Pope.
Indeed, he is the Pope from the moment he accepts the office; but two analogies are relevant. First, if he did not intend to accept episcopal consecration, his initial and apparent "acceptance" would be no such thing. Second, we know that someone can apparently accept another in marriage, while actually not doing so; and that the Church can judge this situation.
The Pope materialiter ("pope") is not the Pope; nor, at least in our circumstances, is this doubtful. So he is even more judicable than a doubtful Pope.
"Why is it impossible to judge the Pope-elect? He is not the Pope.
Indeed, he is the Pope from the moment he accepts the office; but two analogies are relevant. First, if he did not intend to accept episcopal consecration, his initial and apparent "acceptance" would be no such thing."
That's right, his internal intention to accept the Pontificate would be vitiated because being a consecrated bishop is a vital part of the papal office, but the Church wouldn't know about it until he actually refused consecration. So does any canonist say what would happen in that case?
**Added these two paragraphs below upon further reflection**: I can see why this example you gave logically indicates that in such a situation, if the Pope-elect were to obstinately refuse consecration, the Church would probably have no choice but to nullify the election, which means that she would indeed be judging the Pope-elect. I must commend you and thank you, it is actually a great example to show this. I must concede then that it does *seem* that the Church can judge a Pope-elect, before he accepts his election, or if it is proven that his acceptance was vitiated by a contrary internal intention. But I would like to see an opinion of a pre-Conciliar canonist or theologian which supports such a conclusion.
However, it still doesn't apply to the Thesis because promulgating harmful laws and teaching error does not indicate that the person did not have the intention of accepting the Papacy, or that he does not have the intention of the good of the Church. He might have that intention, and simply be mistaken about what is good for the Church. We simply do not know because it is internal. In short, being a bad Pope (or "pope") doesn't mean one doesn't have the intention to be Pope, otherwise a lot of the past Roman Pontiffs would have be to stricken from the list of Popes. This is essentially what the Thesis claims, because it doesn't claim that they are heretics, therefore they are bad "popes", who are not really Popes because they are bad.
"Second, we know that someone can apparently accept another in marriage, while actually not doing so; and that the Church can judge this situation."
You mean if he has a contrary internal intention? The Church actually is not able to know that, unless he somehow externally manifests that contrary intention.
I don't see what these examples have to do with the Thesis. If any of the putative popes had an internal intention not to receive the Pontificate, they never manifested it openly.
Added two paragraphs to previous comment upon further reflection.
@s.d.wright after reading this article should we be referring to Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis I and Leo XIV with the prefix of AntiPope?
Why should we do that?
The article argues that they have a coloured title, but not real authority. Wouldn’t it be practically more useful to convince faithful Catholics that AntiPope is the appropriate label rather than continue battles between R&R, Sede and Conservatives who still think the conciliar sect and its programs come from the Catholic Church?
We can call them antipopes, but false popes is more appropriate because an antipope is someone who claims the Papacy in opposition to a true pope, and that is not the case now.
Leo VIII and Benedict V were declared antiPopes and they occupied the see in the absence of other claimants.
Actually, Benedict V was a true Pope, and Leo VIII was an antipope until Benedict V renounced the Papacy by submitting to an invalid deposition, if that is what happened (we are not certain). If he didn't submit, then he remained Pope and Leo remained an antipope.
One may register a cat for a dog race convincing punters that this is fine due to the " 'hidden' defect "– it’s a manifest cat – but, the defect not withstanding, the feline may choose to be a dog some day, like any self-identified liberated animal, then, by golly, ‘habeamus canem!’
And still, in registers so according to law (or right or what should we call it) it would result as a dog, until the bureaucracy, legal error is not corrected
This is true and it presents the question, who has the authority to declare that a cat is, in fact, a cat? Seriously, they would argue that a cat is never a dog but a man can become a Catholic; for the purposes, however, of papal election BEING a Catholic is no accident. Before God, it cannot be One or Holy or Catholic or Apostolic to declare that a public heretic is legal tender for the papacy; a claim made to appease the appetite of an outdated Thesis. If Abp Guerard des Lauriers were alive today to witness the progression of the V2 institution and its leaders, he could not possibly continue to defend his earlier thoughts.
1. About what you say concerning our issue:
and who had the authority that a married priest is a married priest (and so, he cannot be a parish priest)? or that an impotent is impotent (and so, they are unable to marry)? or that a heretic is a heretic (and so, he cannot receive a position in the Church)?
These facts are facts – and yet, the answer is always: only an ecclesiastical authority can do so;
until then, for the law, the married priest remains legally designated (although all the village knows of his “marriage”!)
the impotent remains legally bound to that woman (although the marriage does not exist)
the heretic holds a title to that position
(be it a true, a coloured, or a putative title)
(All these examples are in the article)
2. About what you say on Bp. Guérard de Lauriers: he had seen enough, up to 1988 when he died. Vatican II's abominations juat change in degree, substantially they are the same.
A married priest is still a member of the Church. The examples fail because heresy excludes membership in the Church, so notions of liceity don’t arise because they are not applicable.
“Vatican II's abominations just changed in degree, substantially they are the same.” It can take a ramping up of the obvious for otherwise clouded vision to become clear.
“...remains legally designated.” Again, the problem with this is the starting point. A public heretic is not even a member of the Church (Mystici Corporis, Pius XII, 1943) and not valid matter for the papacy. Constitution Cum ex apostolatus officio (Paul IV, 1559), makes this plain and it was not put in the rubbish in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (as some people who don’t read the footnotes try to assert (canon 188 no.4)) but rather it was reaffirmed : a heretic can never be validly elected pope. So even before getting to ‘liceity’ you have an invalid election at the get go.
It seems to me this matter of ordinary jurisdiction and formal apostolicity is the one argument which no variant of sedevacantism has an answer for (except the conclavists, but they incur other problems).
All other conciliar objections find sufficient and theologically persuasive responses (and most of them right here on the WM Review), but not this one.
And as such an absolutely critical issue remains unanswered, I remain a sede-doubtist.
The obvious suggestion is that sedes might be wrong:
If it is true that I cannot see how a public heretic, who is not a member of the Church, can be its head, neither can I understand how we can accept that formal apostolicity and ordinary jurisdiction are retained, despite not being able to identify anyone possessing them.
I do understand Sean has explained how visibility can be obscured, and require diligence to find the true Church, but as regards formal apostolicity and ordinary jurisdiction, it seems that no amount of diligence from anyone on the planet has been able to point to a single bishop possessing them in decades.
I sometimes myself point to the eastern rite bishops, as they retain their traditional rites, but doctrinally I’m not aware of any rejecting conciliarism. They’re just less well known.
So the problem remains.
Thanks Sean. Some points:
As I’m sure you’re aware, not having found a persuasive response to this doesn’t undo all the other arguments and somehow prove the alternative is correct – as some seem to think.
I’m sorry that you don’t find the account generally advanced on WM for it sufficient. Where do you think it is lacking?
Specifically, I think it would be helpful to identify even one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction (or conversely, explain why it is not necessary that anyone should be able to do so).
Did you really! How interesting.
I think that I have already explained why this is not necessary, no?
I either missed or forgot the argument. Is there a link you could point me to?
Update: Are you referring to the sections in your visibility article pertaining to partial obscurity and diligence in seeking the Church?
I thought I replied to this, sorry. I think it was in here?
https://www.wmreview.org/p/the-status-of-the-churchs-hierarchy
Sean Johnson: "...neither can I understand how we can accept that formal apostolicity and ordinary jurisdiction are retained, despite not being able to identify anyone possessing them."
It is true that this issue - that we have not yet identified anyone by name who is certainly a true Ordinary - poses a problem (though this is better for those bishops, because if we identified them, they would certainly be persecuted by the usurpers - this is why I wouldn't publicly reveal their names if I knew them, which I don't). Just like you, I used to be R&R so I recognize the instinct to be hesitant (BTW, I remember you from various fora and I must commend you, because there are few who have the character and the love of the truth to publicly admit that they were wrong). But we are obliged to believe that formal Apostolicity and ordinary jurisdiction are retained anyway, because we know this from the infallible statement of Vatican I and other Catholic teaching (that there will be shepherds and teachers, that the Church's Divine Constitution cannot change etc). Nowhere does it say we have to be able to explain every doctrine that the Church proposes us to believe, but we have to accept them and believe, because God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, has revealed them to her. I think this is probably what Mr. Wright was referring to.
"...it seems that no amount of diligence from anyone on the planet has been able to point to a single bishop possessing them in decades."
Well, the list of all the Conciliar ordinaries is available online, so the true ordinaries are certainly on it, we just haven't yet found those of them who are certainly not public heretics (because if they are public heretics, they lost or never received the office), and I think the reason is that *nobody even tried*. Even if we limit ourselves to Eastern rite bishops, it would be so hard to go over the statements of every single one of them, since there is over 350 of them, and we would have to tackle all kinds of exotic languages that 99% of us know nothing about. OTOH, if you want to cover just the ordinaries in the US, then there is about 450 of them, which includes those that are retired (their resignation is invalid by law because it needs to be accepted by a legitimate superior - the Pope). So if you wish to know, go ahead and check their statements for heresy, which would perhaps be useful but actually not at all necessary, since we are only obliged to know the names of our own parish priest, our own ordinary, and the Pope. And if those three guys are public heretics, then we are as sheep without a shepherd (as most of us are), but it does not mean that there are no shepherds in another country, in another region. And the sheep there know them. They may be bad shepherds, careless, they may not sound the alarm to warn of the wolves, they may be cowards who are afraid to fight the wolves, they may let the sheep stray, or may even stray themselves, but none of this makes them wolves (public heretics).
If it helps to understand our situation with regard to visibility, just imagine the situation during the persecutions in the first few centuries. Rarely did the faithful know the names of priests or bishops outside their area, and sometimes they wouldn't even know the name of the Pope.
"I sometimes myself point to the eastern rite bishops, as they retain their traditional rites, but doctrinally I’m not aware of any rejecting conciliarism."
As I said above, they may not sound the alarm, they may be silent, but that doesn't make them wolves, just bad shepherds, and we were not promised to always have *good* shepherds, just that there would be shepherds.
During the Arian Crisis, most of the Eastern bishops defected, and while most of the Western bishops didn't defect, the great majority were silent because they feared the Emperor, they feared persecution and exile. Why can't it be the other way round today? The West is now even more desolate than the East was then, these are by and large effectively missionary lands. And trad priests are like missionaries roaming those lands and giving sacraments to the few scattered Catholics surrounded everywhere by pagans.
I think I addressed it here for example:
https://www.wmreview.org/p/the-status-of-the-churchs-hierarchy
Sean, does the thesis fit in with scholastic philosophy or is it coming from a modern philosophical mindset?
I ask because the thesis seems to posit the reason for these men not being formally Popes as being an internal disposition.
However Aquinas would say that human theories need to be grounded in what is knowable to human reason. The internal forum is only knowable to God; therefore it cannot serve as a basis for human judgement or explanation.
How can Catholics entertain this theory if it is reliant upon judgements of the internal forum?
If it isn’t based on scholastic philosophy then should we even be considering it?
I think it's best to read Bishop GDL in original. There's a lot of confusion around this because the main proponents of the Thesis in the Anglosphere have a particular way of expressing it, and that isn't always reflective of what he wrote.
Apparently there is a letter of Bp. Guérard Des Lauriers where he rejects his thesis saying that contains “enormous theological errors”.
This letter was submitted to shorthand tests and was proven to be authentical.
I am not sure which explanation gives Fr. Ricossa to this.
https://archive.org/details/dossie-guerard-des-lauriers-ricossa-mentiu-laudo-grafotecnito-29701.2022/page/n11/mode/2up
You need wonder no further.
https://www.sodalitiumpianum.com/false-retractions/
https://www.sodalitiumpianum.com/thank-you-mr-louis-hubert-remy/
None of those articles adresses the authenticity of the letter proven by the shorthand tests.
It would be better if the fanatic crowd of Bp. Guérard des Lauriers explains really this issue rather than equating him recklessy with St. Thomas himself.
Mr. Rémy already explained the context of the letter which is simply denied by Fr. Ricossa with zero arguments
Read those articles and you will see that »after« the date of that »ambiguous« letter, on several occasions Bp. Guérard des Lauriers »publicly« affirmed his Thesis, and he affirmed it on his deathbed
And still, in registers so according to law (or right or what should we call it) it would result as a dog, until the bureaucracy, legal error is not corrected