It is currently Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:14 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacum" 
Author Message
New post Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacum"
It is certainly not my intention to have anyone reinvent the wheel---I'm sure it's an ancient topic here--- but I'd be interested in anyone's critical input on Father Guerard des Lauriers', O.P., Cassiciacum thesis, apart from it's being relatively new / novel. Just some substantive input on the merits of the thesis as such.


Wed Feb 20, 2008 2:49 am
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacum"
See here for Jim Larrabee's excellent comments and refutation of aspects of this theory:

viewtopic.php?p=788#p788

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:14 am
Profile E-mail
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacum"
Thanks very much.


Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:03 am
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacum"
Would it be a fair if imprecise reading / analogy to say that Father Guerard des Lauriers placed the Conciliar popes in a coma and on life support (holding out still the possibility that medicine--i.e., grace accepted---could revive the otherwise incapacitated patient) while Sedevacantism declares the patient either DOA or after tripping to his death after entrance into the hospital?

Or is this reflective of a misreading the theses? It is the Guerardian thesis and its ramifications I am trying to understand.


Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:21 am
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Fr. Barbara explains why he broke with Fr. Guerard des Lauriers. Fortes in Fide No. 12, 1993.

3 - MY BREAK WITH R. P. GUERARD DES LAURIERS

This occurred prior to 1980, well before his consecration by Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc.

I had never doubted the exceptional intelligence of the Reverend Father, nor for that matter, the width and depth of his knowledge of the science of theology. On the other hand, what I have always said about this great soul - those that knew him will not disagree with me - was that he suffered from an almost total absence of practical judgment. In an almost habitual fashion he would support and defend the worst side of any issue.

It was this lack of judgment on his part that led me to break off all relations with him.

Thus it can be seen that his Episcopal Consecration had nothing to do with our rupture.

Whatever our misunderstandings may have been, and regardless of his lack of common sense, there was never any question of his being a heretic or a schismatic, much less of his being a formal one. At the time of his Consecration by the elderly Archbishop of Hue, Father Guerard des Lauriers was totally Catholic, and by this I mean, Roman Catholic.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:14 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Well, as many great men of genius, also Fr. Guérard was certainly a man without any practical sense.

But, as far as I know, Fr. Barbara, initially sedevacantist simpliciter, joined the Thesis Cassiciacum. Until his death in october 2002, he was very close to the Institute Mater Boni Consilii, active also in France, which has always supported the Thesis.
Here below the memory of Fr. Barbara by the review of the Institute, after his death (Sodalitium n. 54 december 2002, p. 63):

"Le 10 octobre, dans sa maison de la rue des Oiseaux, à Tours, fidèlement assisté de Soeur Marie-Bernadette et de la soeur de cette dernière, Myriam Malré, est décédé pieusement le R. P. Noël Barbara, qui à Noël aurait eu 92 ans. Nous aurons l’occasion de parler plus longuement - à une prochaine occasion - du Père Barbara, qui fut l’un des chefs de file de la “résistance” catholique à Vatican II et au néo-modernisme. Rappelons pour le moment sa proximité avec notre Institut, qui nous le rend cher comme ami et bienfaiteur insigne. Proximité avant tout doctrinale. Le Père Barbara en effet, après avoir été longtemps le point de référence des sédévacantistes absolus (appelés précisément dans ces années-là “barbaristes”) corrigea ensuite courageusement sa position en embrassant publiquement la Thèse de Cassiciacum sur le Siège formellement mais non matériellement vacant. Après avoir pris contact avec notre Institut dès sa naissance, il se rendit à Verrua quatre années de suite (de 1991 à 1994) pour donner aux prêtres et aux séminaristes les Exercices Spirituels. Durant de nombreuses années il fut le seul prêtre en France, avec l’abbé Delmasure et l’abbé Petit, à demander la collaboration de notre Institut, collaboration qui se concrétisa par la présence d’un de nos prêtres à Tours pendant 5 ans, jusqu’à octobre 2001 (l’abbé Cazalas de 1996 à 1999, l’abbé Giugni de 1999 à 2000, l’abbé Ercoli de 2000 à 2001). Le conseil du Père Barbara ne fut pas étranger à la fructueuse collaboration qui s’est instaurée par la suite avec le Père Vinson, étant lui aussi, comme le Père Barbara, un ancien Père de Chabeuil. Rappelons également que, en mettant un terme aux publications de la glorieuse revue Forts dans la Foi, le Père Barbara invita tous ses lecteurs et abonnés à voir dans Sodalitium la continuation de son oeuvre. Nombreuses sont les dettes de reconnaissance que notre Institut a accumulées envers le Père, et nombreuses sont les dettes de tous les catholiques
à l’égard de celui qui, dès 1968, prit la défense de la Foi contre l’hérésie moderniste. Le Père Barbara a reçu les derniers sacrements des mains de l’abbé Guépin; le curé de Steffeshausen, l’abbé Schoonbroodt, a célébré ses funérailles le 14 octobre. L’abbé Murro et l’abbé Cazalas y assistaient, représentant ainsi tous les membres de l’Institut, tandis qu’à Verrua, le 12 du même mois, a été chantée une messe solennelle de Requiem"
.

At page 62 it is possible to see a beautiful photo with Fr. Barbara at Verrua (Turin, Italy) in 1994 kissing the hands of Father Cazalas (priest of the Institute) the day of his ordination.

Image


It is interesting also to remember the position of Fr. Barbara on the "Una Cum Mass". Fr. Barbara was strongly contrary to these Masses, but rightly indulgent with the faithful who had no other choice. Here his words:

"THE PROBLEM WITH UNA CUM

It is clear to everyone that a pope who commands what theological faith obliges us to reject does not have the Catholic faith.

To celebrate the Mass UNA CUM FAMULO TUO PAPA NOSTRO JOANNE PAULO manifests that one recognizes him to have, and shares with him the same faith or as the theologians say, one is in communion with him. This is especially true since the Pope is normally the proximate rule of the faith.

But how can one claim to be in communion with an individual in matters of the faith, when that person is deprived of the virtue of theological faith. Such is even more the case when the word of God commands us to refuse to do this.


And apart from a lack of awareness or plain stupidity, which would excuse the infamy of such an act, to claim that these popes are such is to make a laughing stock of God. To offer up the Holy Mass - "mysterium fidei - una cum", in communion with someone that the faith obliges us to oppose, and to have the gall to list him among those who have the orthodox,
apostolic and Catholic faith is to ridicule the faith and mock Our Lord.[5]

Is it a sin to assist at such celebrations?

The Church forbids the faithful to participate or assist at ceremonies of FORMAL heretics and schismatics. Do the "una cum" priests[6] fall within such a category? As far as I am concerned, I do not think they do. Whatever be the situation, as long as the proof of their formal heresy or schism has not been established, one can only consider those who say the Mass in this manner as scandalous ministers, that is to say, scandalous because of giving scandal to the faith.

It is appropriate to apply to them the rules of the Church with regard to such ministers. The faithful who have no other Mass available are dispensed from assisting at Mass, even on days of obligation, if the available Masses are repugnant to their faith. On the other hand, if for any reason whatsoever they feel the need to communicate, they can assist and communicate at such Masses because no other Masses are available to them. In this situation, only the minister is guilty of giving scandal, providing of course that he is not invincibly ignorant of the scandal that he is giving.

[5] Those who do this in celebrating the Mass should recall the terrible things that happened to Ananias and Saphira (Acts,
V:1-10). They also lie to the Holy Spirit every time they use this formula. How is it that those who have been scandalized
by the "rallying" to the official church of the religious of Le Barroux and Chemere and of the members of the St. Peter Society
do not realize that the perfect rallying to the side of John Paul II is the one that, as Father Belmont said, they solemnly accomplish (and effectively, since it is in the sacramental order and in the most intimate of the first of the sacraments) when they celebrate "una cum famulo tuo Joanne Paulo"?

[6] I do not mean those priests who have joined the new Church, but those who, while resisting, claim to be united in faith with the Catholic pope of their imagination."


(Source: Fortes in Fide n. 8, 1991, THE POPES OF VATICAN II The problem that they present The response of the faith, where Fr. Barbara also explain the Fr. Guérard Thesis, considering it valid and correct).


Finally, it is useful to report an important work of Fr. Barbara entitled "Econe, point final" (1982) where he shows the non-Catholic and incoherent position of SSPX. Here the link: http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/46/ ... -final.pdf.

Cordially


Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:15 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Yes, thanks Gabriele, the point was not to slay Fr. Guerard, but merely to add another testimony to the nature of his character. It helps when reading, or reading about, each of the characters who played key roles in the reaction to Vatican II, to know who they were.

Fr. Barbara certainly had his own character flaws, which too often seemed to become theological flaws in others, if you see what I mean. :)

Fr. Barbara became a Guerardian, and a supporter of the Thuc consecrations, in the end. But he never dropped his accusations against Archbishop Lefebvre, although he softened them somewhat.

His focus as far as the "una cum" goes was on the priest, not the faithful, just as Guerard's was. The idea that the faithful must avoid such masses in toto is really an American thing. I guess if the priests won't listen to your theories, give them to those with less theological knowledge and see how you go...

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:15 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Dear John,

your quote of Fr. Barbara seemed to me more intentioned to underline a negative aspect of the character of Fr. Guérard than to show the (global) nature of his character, because it was really decontextualized. But it does not matter.

Then, I take this opportunity for indicate this life of Fr. Guérard Des Lauriers by Fr. Murro:
http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/46/ ... uriers.pdf.

Image

I may add brievly, on the witness of Fr. Ricossa (a disciple of him), that Fr. Guérard was a man of great charity and mercy. Now elderly he was capable of making hundreds and hundreds of miles to confess a person or to give the Holy Communion. He was very very devoted to Our Lady. And he truly practiced the poverty. He was a man full of zeal for souls and with great concern for others.
All his disciples, even those which are successively passed to Modernism (that moreover are very good theologians - as Fr. De Blignières or Fr. Bernard Lucien), they have always considered theologically correct the Thesis of Fr. Guérard on the matter and the form of the Papacy. Obviously for the Modernists she is not applicable, because they have ceased to recognize the errors in the "conciliar magisterium".


Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:22 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Dear Gabriele,

I'm aware of his reputation for holiness. Jim Larrabee once asked rhetorically of him, "If Guerard wasn't holy, who was?"

I'm glad you have posted this additional material. No doubt he was not merely saintly, but extraordinarily intelligent also. But apparently he was a man without strong practical judgement.

Archbishop Lefebvre was likewise holy, learned, intelligent, although not as intelligent as Guerard, at least as far as the speculative intellect went, but with a genius for practical judgement.

The contrast in characters is really very instructive when trying to understand their respective courses, their differing reactions, their ultimate inability to cooperate.

Guerard the speculator, Lefebvre the pragmatist. Both open to criticism by others, on different grounds. And how they were criticised! I've pointed out privately to others that re-reading Fr. Barbara recently it became clear where much of the anti-Lefebvre sede thought originated. Some of Fr. Sanborn's articles are like abstracts of editions of Fortes in Fide. Perhaps there will be a doctoral thesis in that some day in a hundred years. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:30 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
John Lane wrote:
Dear Gabriele,

I'm aware of his reputation for holiness. Jim Larrabee once asked rhetorically of him, "If Guerard wasn't holy, who was?"

I'm glad you have posted this additional material. No doubt he was not merely saintly, but extraordinarily intelligent also. But apparently he was a man without strong practical judgement.


Also Fr. Ricossa and Fr. De Blignières remember that Fr. Guérard was totally devoid of concrete sense. His mind was all turned to speculation and contemplation. He has been until now the greatest theologian who has known and experienced this crisis in the Church.

John Lane wrote:
Archbishop Lefebvre was likewise holy, learned, intelligent, although not as intelligent as Guerard, at least as far as the speculative intellect went, but with a genius for practical judgement.


He was undoubtedly a great organizer and a great administrator, which implies a great practical spirit. But all we can see where his way of leading the good fight has led the SSPX. His position in front of the crisis (a crisis of Authority) was theologically totally unfounded and very very few catholic, because de facto Lefebvre disobeyed to those which he himself recognized as the true Authorities of the Church.

John Lane wrote:
The contrast in characters is really very instructive when trying to understand their respective courses, their differing reactions, their ultimate inability to cooperate.

Guerard the speculator, Lefebvre the pragmatist. Both open to criticism by others, on different grounds. And how they were criticised! I've pointed out privately to others that re-reading Fr. Barbara recently it became clear where much of the anti-Lefebvre sede thought originated. Some of Fr. Sanborn's articles are like abstracts of editions of Fortes in Fide. Perhaps there will be a doctoral thesis in that some day in a hundred years. :)


I agree. But, personally, in my small, I try to follow not the best character, not the best personality, nor necessarily the holiest man. But the man whose ideas are more rooted in the Truth. By consequence, the person most theologically prepared.


Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:49 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Gabriele wrote:
He was undoubtedly a great organizer and a great administrator, which implies a great practical spirit. But all we can see where his way of leading the good fight has led the SSPX. His position in front of the crisis (a crisis of Authority) was theologically totally unfounded and very very few catholic, because de facto Lefebvre disobeyed to those which he himself recognized as the true Authorities of the Church.

...

I agree. But, personally, in my small, I try to follow not the best character, not the best personality, nor necessarily the holiest man. But the man whose ideas are more rooted in the Truth. By consequence, the person most theologically prepared.


Gabriele,

This is going to surprise you perhaps. While I won't say I "follow" any of these men, only because it isn't factual, I think that Archbishop Lefebvre was the better theologian. The best theologian is the one who follows the authorities, not the one who is the most creative. Guerard was a brilliant thinker, but in the same sense as John Courtney Murray was a brilliant thinker, or Henri de Lubac was. The difference is that Guerard was orthodox. But the brilliance is of the same kind.

I'm also not convinced at all that the argument from results makes any sense, in the direction you're arguing.

Fr. Barbara made the prediction in 1993 that the work of Archbishop Lefebvre would disintegrate because it wasn't founded on doctrine. This has been a constant theme of sedevacantist analysis, picked up by Bishop Sanborn and repeated. The factual data is to the contrary. Guerard's work has virtually petered out. Fr. Barbara's work really came to nothing. He left almost no legacy at all.

When you say that Archbishop Lefebvre's work was not based upon doctrine, you are repeating what Fr. Barbara said. I presume you mean what he meant, which is that in Fr. Barbara's opinion only two possible Catholic positions exist - sede vacante, or actual obedience to the heretics.

But this argument inverts the correct order. Resistance to error is absolutely required, always, even if a true pope expresses it. This was true in the time of Liberius, of Pascal II, and of John XXII, and it's true today. Any argument which undercuts this this is wrong. The faith is absolutely primary. It's the first bond of the Church, and the Church is ontologically prior to the pope. Where Peter is, there is the Church, is not to be understood as though the Church comes from Peter. It didn't. It came from Our Lord's side on the Cross.

Without this principle, all further argument must rest upon sand. One cannot get to a judgement of sede vacante without it. The reasoning required to get there would be illicit and illogical.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:14 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
But is the SSPX position "non-Catholic and incoherent"?


Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:25 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:27 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Germany
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Yes Cam you are right. Their position is not Catholic. For example they claim that a true pope can prmulgate harmful laws to the entire Church. This has been condemned by Pius VI:

Quote:
78. The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which,
after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be
distinguished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be
distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too
burden-some for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is
dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality
of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and
approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established
discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even
dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,—false, rash, scandalous,
dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is
guided, at least erroneous.]


Taken from here:
http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/vi ... 743#p10743

I would even go so far that their position is not just seriously wrong but heretical, for the following reason:
They claim that the pope could impose to the entire Church a Catechism which is harmful. This you can check here:
http://www.sspx.org/New_Catechism/new_c ... olic_I.htm

You can verify in every traditional manual on dogmatic theology that such an assertion contradicts the infallibility of the universal ordinary magisterium (for example Diekamp or Ott).

Then I must make a remark to John's comment:

Quote:
But this argument inverts the correct order. Resistance to error is absolutely required, always, even if a true pope expresses it. This was true in the time of Liberius, of Pascal II, and of John XXII, and it's true today.


I agree we must resist the modernists to their face. But the same applies to the Lefebvrists. The idea to resist a harmful magisterium is an invention of the Lefebvrists unknown in traditional theology.


Quote:
Fr. Barbara made the prediction in 1993 that the work of Archbishop Lefebvre would disintegrate because it wasn't founded on doctrine. This has been a constant theme of sedevacantist analysis, picked up by Bishop Sanborn and repeated. The factual data is to the contrary. Guerard's work has virtually petered out. Fr. Barbara's work really came to nothing. He left almost no legacy at all.


I have seen so many people who broke association with SSPX due to their inconsenstities. The most famous example is the Campos cummunity.

And then there is a disintegration on a more subtle level:
the validity of SSPX sacraments becomes more and more questionable as they allow NO fake priests on their altars.


Sat Jul 07, 2012 9:00 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:27 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Germany
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
I must make a further comment why I am so against Lefebvrism and tolerant towards Gueradism:

I adhere to strict sedevacantism I am not a Gueradist I have never been one. But the difference is that up to now nobody was able to find a contradiction between the magisterium and the Cassiciacum thesis. Thus it remains a permissible view.

Contrast it to the SSPX position where the contradiction to Catholic teaching is manifest as I have posted above.


Sat Jul 07, 2012 9:08 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
My comments were about Archbishop Lefebvre, not his followers. Please keep that in mind.

We appear to agree that we can't say that it is unlawful to resist error, even if it comes from a pope. In other words, it isn't right to say that if he's pope, we are obliged to accept the reforms of V2. That assertion is made frequently, and it destroys all resistance.

In fact, it was the reason that the nuns who left the convent at Mt. St. Michael went to the Novus Ordo and not to the SSPX or some Indult group. They had had drummed into them this all-or-nothing dichotomy, and they believed it. Terrible.

You can see the same thing with the Society of St. Vincent Ferrer in France, the priests of which went from Lefebvre, to Guerardian, to Novus Ordo.

As for people leaving the SSPX, yes, lots of priests have done so. But they are now 550 priests. Nothing else is even a shadow of that, and plenty could be said about the tendency of sedes to split, split, and split again, like dividing cells, except without the growith implied by cell division.

Yet Fr. Barbara said that the SSPX would not flourish, because of its lack of theology. Whether or not it lacks theology, it has relatively flourished, and Fr. Barbara's work is gone, and Bishop Guerard's is hardly booming.

I agree that the SSPX position implies theological error. I think theological error is pretty common within the SSPX too. But the Guerardian theory implies error too - actually, it directly asserts it, by claiming that a non-pope can validly perform functions which are strictly papal. As for theological error amongst sedes, well I wouldn't know where to begin. It's certainly widespread!

But we must distinguish the theoretical basis of Lefebvre's actions from those of the SSPX after him. He held that JP2 was doubtful, for various reasons, including because the New Code was heretical.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:17 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
John Lane wrote:
We appear to agree that we can't say that it is unlawful to resist error, even if it comes from a pope. In other words, it isn't right to say that if he's pope, we are obliged to accept the reforms of V2. That assertion is made frequently, and it destroys all resistance.


Resistance and recognition ends up in a dead end of contradiction and inconsistency. Isn't that the fundamental reason why the Bavarian pretender is rejected?


Sat Jul 07, 2012 11:29 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
The primary reasons are, first, that if he were pope, then the implications for the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church are impossible, and second, that he's a heretic, and a heretic cannot be pope.

But that doesn't alter the fact that it is lawful, indeed necessary, to reject his errors, even if per impossibile he is pope.

I'm not saying the SSPX position is correct or even orthodox. I was commenting only on Archbishop Lefebvre.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:14 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Here's how Stephen Heiner characterises the SSPX position:

Quote:
So, if he is a Modernist, he is a heretic. And yet, for these clergy, there is no big deal that the man they consider Pope is a heretic in their eyes. No longer the tedious "formal/material" distinctions. They call him a heretic outright, but for them, no consequences for such a label. http://truerestoration.blogspot.com.au/ ... apter.html


Is it fair or true to say, "for these clergy, there is no big deal that the man they consider Pope is a heretic"? No. It's a very big deal for these men, a profound mystery.

They could easily reply, that "for Stephen Heiner, there is no big deal that the Catholic Church has no hierarchy". That would be just as fair as his assertion. There is, however, a difference. The idea that a pope can be a heretic is not unorthodox. It is a tolerated opinion, held by a number of approved theologians. Whereas the idea that the Church has no hierarchy is a heresy.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:46 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele,

This is going to surprise you perhaps. While I won't say I "follow" any of these men, only because it isn't factual, I think that Archbishop Lefebvre was the better theologian. The best theologian is the one who follows the authorities, not the one who is the most creative. Guerard was a brilliant thinker, but in the same sense as John Courtney Murray was a brilliant thinker, or Henri de Lubac was. The difference is that Guerard was orthodox. But the brilliance is of the same kind.


John,

Archbishop Lefebvre did not follow any Authority nor Papal (because Paul VI and John Paul II had not Papal Authority) nor theological (at least about the capital doctrine on infallibility, because he was minimalist). So I respect your opinion, but, really, I do not understand how Lefebvre can be considered the better theologian compared to Fr. Guérard.

John Lane wrote:
I'm also not convinced at all that the argument from results makes any sense, in the direction you're arguing.

Fr. Barbara made the prediction in 1993 that the work of Archbishop Lefebvre would disintegrate because it wasn't founded on doctrine. This has been a constant theme of sedevacantist analysis, picked up by Bishop Sanborn and repeated. The factual data is to the contrary. Guerard's work has virtually petered out. Fr. Barbara's work really came to nothing. He left almost no legacy at all.

When you say that Archbishop Lefebvre's work was not based upon doctrine, you are repeating what Fr. Barbara said. I presume you mean what he meant, which is that in Fr. Barbara's opinion only two possible Catholic positions exist - sede vacante, or actual obedience to the heretics.

But this argument inverts the correct order. Resistance to error is absolutely required, always, even if a true pope expresses it.


It is impossible that a Pope teaches, in matter of faith and moral, to the universal Church an error. As Lefebvre, also you forget this fundamental doctrine.


John Lane wrote:
This was true in the time of Liberius, of Pascal II, and of John XXII, and it's true today. Any argument which undercuts this this is wrong.


These are the classic arguments of anticlericals and heretics of all time to fight the Papacy.

Without starting an historical discussion on the subject (I have neither the time nor the inclination now), I remember you the eminent doctrine of the Vatican Council:

For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor”.

And again more precisely:

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples”.


John Lane wrote:
The faith is absolutely primary. It's the first bond of the Church, and the Church is ontologically prior to the pope. Where Peter is, there is the Church, is not to be understood as though the Church comes from Peter. It didn't. It came from Our Lord's side on the Cross.

Without this principle, all further argument must rest upon sand. One cannot get to a judgement of sede vacante without it. The reasoning required to get there would be illicit and illogical.



Dear John, I am sorry but it seems to me that your ecclesiology is wrong.

What do you mean when you say that the Church is prior to the pope? Do you want to say that the body is prior to the head?


Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:30 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Martin wrote:
Their position is not Catholic. For example they claim that a true pope can prmulgate harmful laws to the entire Church.


Martin wrote:
I would even go so far that their position is not just seriously wrong but heretical, for the following reason:
They claim that the pope could impose to the entire Church a Catechism which is harmful. This you can check here:
http://www.sspx.org/New_Catechism/new_c ... olic_I.htm


Martin wrote:
I must make a further comment why I am so against Lefebvrism and tolerant towards Gueradism:

I adhere to strict sedevacantism I am not a Gueradist I have never been one. But the difference is that up to now nobody was able to find a contradiction between the magisterium and the Cassiciacum thesis. Thus it remains a permissible view.

Contrast it to the SSPX position where the contradiction to Catholic teaching is manifest as I have posted above.


I perfectly agree.


Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:35 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Dear Gabriele,

Gabriele wrote:
Archbishop Lefebvre did not follow any Authority nor Papal (because Paul VI and John Paul II had not Papal Authority) nor theological (at least about the capital doctrine on infallibility, because he was minimalist).


Well, he only stated what is true, which is that the pope says is not infallible in every word. That much is true. See if you can find Lefebvre saying more (e.g. expressing the view held by more modern SSPX figures against the ordinary magisterium, etc.)


Gabriele wrote:
So I respect your opinion, but, really, I do not understand how Lefebvre can be considered the better theologian compared to Fr. Guérard.


Guerard did not think one could identify a heretic prior to a canonical warning, which is impossible anyway, so he did not think one could say Paul VI was a heretic. This is terrible theology and worse canon law.

But more fundamentally, Guerard didn't follow authorities, he made up his own theory (Paul VI did not will the good of the Church. What authority ever laid down a theory like that? It's a total novelty.) When he used authorities, he managed to choose the wrong ones (e.g. Cajetan instead of Bellarmine).

When Lefebvre presented the sede vacante thesis (in 1986), he gave the absolutely classical view - that if JP2 is pertinacious, which we can check by warning him, he is not pope, period. This is Bellarmine.

Quote:
It is impossible that a Pope teaches, in matter of faith and moral, to the universal Church an error. As Lefebvre, also you forget this fundamental doctrine.


Well, did he? Perhaps you can quote him.

When challenged by the CDF in 1979, Lefebvre dodged the question of whether Paul VI promulgated the New Mass. Fr. Barbara was scandalised by this, but it was orthodox and illustrated Lefebvre's orthodoxy. If he weren't orthodox, he'd have said, "Well, popes can promulgate evil liturgy." He could not say that.


Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
This was true in the time of Liberius, of Pascal II, and of John XXII, and it's true today. Any argument which undercuts this this is wrong.


These are the classic arguments of anticlericals and heretics of all time to fight the Papacy.


No, they are not. The Gallicans say that popes erred. I do not say that. I say what the Decretals, St. Robert, and all of the rest of the authorities say, which is that IF a pope teaches heresy, he must be resisted.

Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
The faith is absolutely primary. It's the first bond of the Church, and the Church is ontologically prior to the pope. Where Peter is, there is the Church, is not to be understood as though the Church comes from Peter. It didn't. It came from Our Lord's side on the Cross.

Without this principle, all further argument must rest upon sand. One cannot get to a judgement of sede vacante without it. The reasoning required to get there would be illicit and illogical.



Dear John, I am sorry but it seems to me that your ecclesiology is wrong.

What do you mean when you say that the Church is prior to the pope? Do you want to say that the body is prior to the head?


No, the Head of the Church is Our Lord Jesus Christ. He is prior to His body, the Church. But the pope is the visible head, and the visible head presupposes the body. The body exists when there is no visible head, remember?

The pope exists to defend and preach the faith. He cannot defend what does not exist. It is absolutely prior to him. The papacy, the office, is not prior to the faith, precisely because it is part of the faith, but the pope is not the papacy.

I'm very surprised any of this concerns you.

Without this understanding, how could you resist the error of Paul VI the first time he expressed it? You would have to say, "Well, he's the pope, I must be mistaken about the doctrine I thought that the Church has always taught, so I'll change my mind now and believe this new doctrine."

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 09, 2012 2:18 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Gabriele wrote:
Martin wrote:
Their position is not Catholic. For example they claim that a true pope can prmulgate harmful laws to the entire Church.


...

I perfectly agree.


I don't, because I think those statements caricature the true views of Archbishop Lefebvre, and even those of later SSPX thinkers.

Do you agree that a theory that asserts that there is no hierarchy is heretical?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 09, 2012 2:20 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
John Lane wrote:
The idea that a pope can be a heretic is not unorthodox. It is a tolerated opinion, held by a number of approved theologians.

I hope I am not jumping in here inappropriately, but how can this possibly be a "tolerated opinion"? I don't understand this at all. How can someone who is an heretic, and therefore, no longer a member of the Church, still be its head? This seems to me to be a profound contradiction and not even logical.

If you have time, could you please elucidate this?

The only possible explanation I have been able to come to on this question is simply that this particular issue has never actually been debated to any length or depth in the Church's history, and therefore, it has never been ruled upon, since there really was no need: most Catholics viewed even the possibility of the situation as I do: vis-a-vis St. Robert Bellarmine, when he stated, that in his opinion, no true pope could ever be an heretic.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Last edited by Ken Gordon on Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:46 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
By the way, John, I have been reading this entire exchange with extreme interest. I must congratulate you on the very clear, reasoned, well thought-out, and most logical answers you have given here. I very much appreciate you. I have always been extremely disturbed by the so-called Cassiciacum thesis, feeling that there was something very profoundly erroneous about it, and you have put those feelings clearly into words. Thank you.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:55 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
John Lane wrote:
Dear Gabriele,
Well, he only stated what is true, which is that the pope says is not infallible in every word. That much is true. See if you can find Lefebvre saying more (e.g. expressing the view held by more modern SSPX figures against the ordinary magisterium, etc.)


Of course that I found more. I have found that Lefebvre recognized as true Pope, as a man with the Authority of the Vicar of Christ, Paul VI, that is the man who approved the Second Vatican Council, an “Ecumenical Council” which taught several erroneous doctrines as for example the new doctrine on religious freedom presented as strictly connected to the Revelation. About you, John, is a doctrine proposed as connected to the Divine Revelation by an Ecumenical Council infallible?

John Lane wrote:
Guerard did not think one could identify a heretic prior to a canonical warning, which is impossible anyway, so he did not think one could say Paul VI was a heretic. This is terrible theology and worse canon law.


No John, it seems to me that you do not know what Fr. Guérard thought.
What canon of the code would you apply to the present situation?

John Lane wrote:
But more fundamentally, Guerard didn't follow authorities, he made up his own theory (Paul VI did not will the good of the Church. What authority ever laid down a theory like that? It's a total novelty.) When he used authorities, he managed to choose the wrong ones (e.g. Cajetan instead of Bellarmine).


Was Cajetan a wrong authority? And why? It is ridiculous. And however this is not the opinion of St. Bellarmine who had highest esteem of Cajetan and who described Cajetan as “uomo di sommo ingegno e di non minore pieta” (source: Enciclopedia Cattolica voice De Vio) [“man of great intelligence and compassion no less”] . On the other hand, Cajetan was adviser to many Popes.
So, to err is who takes an author and proceeds with his eyes closed and one-way.

John Lane wrote:
When Lefebvre presented the sede vacante thesis (in 1986), he gave the absolutely classical view - that if JP2 is pertinacious, which we can check by warning him, he is not pope, period. This is Bellarmine.


He posed occasionally some questions but nothing more. He officially considered true Popes Paul VI and John Paul II and he never declared the Sede Vacante.

John Lane wrote:
Well, did he? Perhaps you can quote him.

You can see my first answer in this post. Contra factum non valet argumentum.

John Lane wrote:
When challenged by the CDF in 1979, Lefebvre dodged the question of whether Paul VI promulgated the New Mass. Fr. Barbara was scandalised by this, but it was orthodox and illustrated Lefebvre's orthodoxy. If he weren't orthodox, he'd have said, "Well, popes can promulgate evil liturgy." He could not say that.


In his talks with the CDF Lefebvre was persuaded to speak with the Roman authorities. And when he spoke to Paul VI and John Paul II called them "Holy Father".

John Lane wrote:
No, they are not. The Gallicans say that popes erred. I do not say that.


Of course that you have said it, John.
You have said:
“Resistance to error is absolutely required, always, even if a true pope expresses it. This was true in the time of Liberius, of Pascal II, and of John XXII, and it's true today” (John Lane).
Why mention these names except to say that they were Popes who taught error?

John Lane wrote:
I say what the Decretals, St. Robert, and all of the rest of the authorities say, which is that IF a pope teaches heresy, he must be resisted.


1. No John, for Bellarmine (who believed that Divine Providence would never permit a heretic to become Pope), a Pope can not teach heresy in his Magisterium! He was a convinced infallibilist! Bellarmine treated the question of the Pope as public heretic, but as private person!
For Lefebvre an Ecumenical Council (obviously chaired by the Pope) can err in his Magisterium! Do you understand?

2. For the rest, according to Bellarmine – once lost the Papacy – we must not resist to a Pope, but to a man that is not the Pope. A Catholic can not resist to the Pope. Instead, Lefebvre resisted to persons which he himself recognized as true Popes.

John Lane wrote:
No, the Head of the Church is Our Lord Jesus Christ. He is prior to His body, the Church. But the pope is the visible head, and the visible head presupposes the body. The body exists when there is no visible head, remember?


1.The visible head presupposes the body, and the body presupposes the visible head. Thus, why do you speak of priority of the Church (/body)?

2. The body continues to exist without visible head if it subsists again the power to elect the visible head.

John Lane wrote:
The pope exists to defend and preach the faith. He cannot defend what does not exist. It is absolutely prior to him. The papacy, the office, is not prior to the faith, precisely because it is part of the faith, but the pope is not the papacy.


Of course, the Pope is for the Faith and not the Faith for the Pope. First of all the Faith.
And just because the Pope exists to defend and preach the Faith, Lefebvre is wrong when he believes that a Pope can err in his Magisterium.

John Lane wrote:
I'm very surprised any of this concerns you.

Without this understanding, how could you resist the error of Paul VI the first time he expressed it? You would have to say, "Well, he's the pope, I must be mistaken about the doctrine I thought that the Church has always taught, so I'll change my mind now and believe this new doctrine."


I would have resisted to Paul VI (when he expressed the first error in his “Magisterium”), because I know that a true Pope can not err when he teaches to the Church in matter of faith and moral.

John Lane wrote:
Do you agree that a theory that asserts that there is no hierarchy is heretical?


Before starting, can I ask you what do you have read about this theory? And which statements of these works do you think are heretical? It is for narrow, simplify and make concrete the discussion.


Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:03 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Ken Gordon wrote:
John Lane wrote:
The idea that a pope can be a heretic is not unorthodox. It is a tolerated opinion, held by a number of approved theologians.

I hope I am not jumping in here inappropriately, but how can this possibly be a "tolerated opinion"? I don't understand this at all. How can someone who is an heretic, and therefore, no longer a member of the Church, still be its head? This seems to me to be a profound contradiction and not even logical.


Ken,

I hope you're feeling better!

Cajetan, Suarez, John of St. Thomas, and a whole host of other approved theologians taught that a heretic-pope must be deposed, and must be resisted until he is deposed.

This is therefore a tolerated opinion. It is, technically, a probable opinion, with some extrinsic probability.

The root of the difference between Bellarmine and Cajetan is the nature of "membership" in the Church. Cajetan and others were confused about what constituted a man a member. Bellarmine clarified it, and Pius XII settled it for all time. So that school of thought is now dead, but unfortunately some men have not noticed.

What is not yet dead are the consequences of that confusion over "membership in the Church" for the related questions, such as the pope-heretic thesis. Journet kept it alive, as did Guerard and many SSPX thinkers.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:37 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Dear Gabriele,
Well, he only stated what is true, which is that the pope says is not infallible in every word. That much is true. See if you can find Lefebvre saying more (e.g. expressing the view held by more modern SSPX figures against the ordinary magisterium, etc.)


Of course that I found more. I have found that Lefebvre recognized as true Pope, as a man with the Authority of the Vicar of Christ, Paul VI, that is the man who approved the Second Vatican Council, an “Ecumenical Council” which taught several erroneous doctrines as for example the new doctrine on religious freedom presented as strictly connected to the Revelation. About you, John, is a doctrine proposed as connected to the Divine Revelation by an Ecumenical Council infallible?


Yes, it is. But what Lefebvre actually held was that it was doubtful what the nature and status of Vatican II was. So this is a difference over a question of fact, not theology. He was orthodox.

As I said, find me Lefebvre saying that a pope can teach heresy to the whole Church, or that a General Council can err.

Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Guerard did not think one could identify a heretic prior to a canonical warning, which is impossible anyway, so he did not think one could say Paul VI was a heretic. This is terrible theology and worse canon law.


No John, it seems to me that you do not know what Fr. Guérard thought.


Then please quote him to correct my understanding. There's no hurry about any of this.

Gabriele wrote:
What canon of the code would you apply to the present situation?


A series of them, but the main point would be that canonical warnings are necessary for ferendae sententiae censures, but not for latae sententiae censures; and further, that the loss of membership and the consequent loss of office are not a question of censures at all, they are effects flowing directly and automatically from divine law, as Bellarmine teaches and as Canon 188 shows.

Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
But more fundamentally, Guerard didn't follow authorities, he made up his own theory (Paul VI did not will the good of the Church. What authority ever laid down a theory like that? It's a total novelty.) When he used authorities, he managed to choose the wrong ones (e.g. Cajetan instead of Bellarmine).


Was Cajetan a wrong authority? And why?


On these questions, he is entirely the wrong authority. Cajetan was also called a Lamp of the Church by a pope (although he was never declared a Doctor). So he has real authority and weight. But on these questions he was wrong, and this is shown by the adoption by later theologians of Bellarmine's opinions, and the progressive abandonment of Cajetan's. A theologian may well be a very great authority on some things, and on one thing be weak. Suarez was great on certain subjects, especially the Immaculate Conception, but he is definitely not a good authority on membership in the Church and the things that follow from that. Bellarmine is the prince of ecclesiology.

Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
When Lefebvre presented the sede vacante thesis (in 1986), he gave the absolutely classical view - that if JP2 is pertinacious, which we can check by warning him, he is not pope, period. This is Bellarmine.


He posed occasionally some questions but nothing more. He officially considered true Popes Paul VI and John Paul II and he never declared the Sede Vacante.


Yes, of course, but we're not discussing his judgement of contingent questions, but rather his theology. His theology was that of St. Robert; his judgement of the contingent question of whether JP2 was pope or not was a legitimate view, no matter how much we'd have preferred him to share our judgement instead.

Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Well, did he? Perhaps you can quote him.

You can see my first answer in this post. Contra factum non valet argumentum.


This fact can be understood in several different ways. One is not arguing against a fact if one does not agree with one possible interpretation of a fact. In this case we have no evidence that Lefebvre held that a true General Council could teach error. We have evidence to the contrary. He didn't know what status Vatican II had, or what its authority was. The matter was deliberately obscured by Paul VI, no doubt precisely to create the confusion that it did actually cause.

Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
When challenged by the CDF in 1979, Lefebvre dodged the question of whether Paul VI promulgated the New Mass. Fr. Barbara was scandalised by this, but it was orthodox and illustrated Lefebvre's orthodoxy. If he weren't orthodox, he'd have said, "Well, popes can promulgate evil liturgy." He could not say that.


In his talks with the CDF Lefebvre was persuaded to speak with the Roman authorities. And when he spoke to Paul VI and John Paul II called them "Holy Father".


Yes, but in both cases he raised doubts, and then proceeded practically only to address them on the hypothesis that they had the authority they pretended to have. This is clear from the record.

Lefebvre, sermon for the ordinations of 29 June 1978:
"I believe that I have the right to ask these gentlemen who present themselves in offices which were occupied by Cardinals (who were indeed saintly persons and who were defenders of the Church and of the Catholic Faith) it seems to me that I would have the right to ask them, “Are you with the Catholic Church?” “Are you the Catholic Church?" "With whom am I dealing?" If I am dealing with someone who has a pact with Masonry, have I the right to speak with such a person? Have I the duty to listen to them and to obey them?"



Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
No, they are not. The Gallicans say that popes erred. I do not say that.


Of course that you have said it, John.
You have said:
“Resistance to error is absolutely required, always, even if a true pope expresses it. This was true in the time of Liberius, of Pascal II, and of John XXII, and it's true today” (John Lane).
Why mention these names except to say that they were Popes who taught error?


Because they were said to have erred by good men at the time. Read the story of Pascal II on investitures and see the reaction of the saints to his compromise with the emperor. The point isn't whether they really erred or not, but what reaction is legitimate. It is legitimate to resist error, even if, per impossibile, it comes from the pope.

Gabriele wrote:
And which statements of these works do you think are heretical?


I think you misunderstood me. Guerard did not err on the question of whether the Church can exist without a hierarchy. Indeed, it was his orthodoxy on this question which caused him to develop his theory. I asked, "Do you agree that a theory that asserts that there is no hierarchy is heretical?" Guerard certainly agreed with what I am saying on this point. Surely you agree also!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:17 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
John Lane wrote:
I hope you're feeling better!

Yes, thank you John, I am, although I have been sick almost constantly, with one thing or another, since about the middle of February.

John Lane wrote:
Cajetan, Suarez, John of St. Thomas, and a whole host of other approved theologians taught that a heretic-pope must be deposed, and must be resisted until he is deposed.

This is therefore a tolerated opinion. It is, technically, a probable opinion, with some extrinsic probability.

The root of the difference between Bellarmine and Cajetan is the nature of "membership" in the Church. Cajetan and others were confused about what constituted a man a member. Bellarmine clarified it, and Pius XII settled it for all time. So that school of thought is now dead, but unfortunately some men have not noticed.

What is not yet dead are the consequences of that confusion over "membership in the Church" for the related questions, such as the pope-heretic thesis. Journet kept it alive, as did Guerard and many SSPX thinkers.

Ah! OK. That makes things much more clear! Thank you, John. I guess I see things more simply: possibly TOO simply, sometimes.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:35 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Dear John,

sorry for the delay. I'm very busy.

John Lane wrote:
Yes, it is. But what Lefebvre actually held was that it was doubtful what the nature and status of Vatican II was. So this is a difference over a question of fact, not theology. He was orthodox.


No, John, he was heterodox. He always, and firmly, called Paul VI and John Paul II "Most Holy Father". Only the Pope is the Holy Father. And a Council chaired by the Pope cannot be doubtul, but legitimate and infallible.

John Lane wrote:
As I said, find me Lefebvre saying that a pope can teach heresy to the whole Church, or that a General Council can err.


For example here:

« Comment un pape vrai successeur de Pierre, assuré de l'assistance de l'Esprit saint, peut-il présider à la destruction de l'Église, la plus profonde et la plus étendue de son histoire en l'espace de si peu de temps, ce qu'aucun hérésiarque n'a jamais réussi à faire ? A cette question il faudra bien répondre un jour » (Mgr Marcel Lefebvre, Ecône, le 2 août 1976).

Or here :

« Le cardinal Ratzinger est contre l'infaillibilité, le pape est contre l'infaillibilité de par sa formation philosophique. Que l'on nous comprenne bien, nous ne sommes pas contre le pape en tant qu'il représente toutes les valeurs du siège apostolique, qui sont immuables, du siège de Pierre, mais contre le pape qui est un moderniste qui ne croit pas à son infaillibilité, qui fait de l'œcuménisme. Évidemment, nous sommes contre l'Église conciliaire qui est pratiquement schismatique, même s'ils ne l'acceptent pas. Dans la pratique, c'est une Église virtuellement excommuniée, parce que c'est une Église moderniste. Ce sont eux qui nous excommunient, alors que nous voulons rester catholiques» (Mgr Lefebvre, Fideliter n. 70, p. 8 ).

Let’s look this disconcerting declaration.
The Pope is against the infallibility.
The Pope is modernist.
The Pope promotes ecumenism.
The conciliar Church [chaired by the Pope] is practically schismatic, virtually excommunicated and she is modernist.
Are these statements orthodox, about you, John?

John Lane wrote:
Then please quote him to correct my understanding. There's no hurry about any of this.


My knowledge of Fr. Guérard mostly comes from his scholars. And your?
But, please, explain me: what is the difference between a Luther who shows himself as heretic and a Luther who is declared heretic by the Authority of the Church?

John Lane wrote:
A series of them, but the main point would be that canonical warnings are necessary for ferendae sententiae censures, but not for latae sententiae censures; and further, that the loss of membership and the consequent loss of office are not a question of censures at all, they are effects flowing directly and automatically from divine law, as Bellarmine teaches and as Canon 188 shows.


1. Canon 188 cannot be apply to the Pope.

2. If to be a heretic is sufficient to completely lose membership then why a Pope who is a occult heretic remains Pope?

John Lane wrote:
On these questions, he is entirely the wrong authority. Cajetan was also called a Lamp of the Church by a pope (although he was never declared a Doctor). So he has real authority and weight. But on these questions he was wrong, and this is shown by the adoption by later theologians of Bellarmine's opinions, and the progressive abandonment of Cajetan's. A theologian may well be a very great authority on some things, and on one thing be weak. Suarez was great on certain subjects, especially the Immaculate Conception, but he is definitely not a good authority on membership in the Church and the things that follow from that. Bellarmine is the prince of ecclesiology.


As long as the Magisterium will not pronounce, the doctrines of each authors in these matters will be more or less authoritative according to the opinions of each of us.

John Lane wrote:
When Lefebvre presented the sede vacante thesis (in 1986), he gave the absolutely classical view - that if JP2 is pertinacious, which we can check by warning him, he is not pope, period. This is Bellarmine.


That Lefebvre was not Guerardian it is sure, John. If he had been sedevacantist he would have been a “total sedevacantist”.
But, I remember you that in his letter, 2.6.1988 to John Paul II, just before the consacrations, he still calls him the "Most Holy Father".

John Lane wrote:
Yes, of course, but we're not discussing his judgement of contingent questions, but rather his theology. His theology was that of St. Robert; his judgement of the contingent question of whether JP2 was pope or not was a legitimate view, no matter how much we'd have preferred him to share our judgement instead.


I want only to show you the incoherent and non-catholic position of Lefebvre. See above.

John Lane wrote:
This fact can be understood in several different ways. One is not arguing against a fact if one does not agree with one possible interpretation of a fact. In this case we have no evidence that Lefebvre held that a true General Council could teach error. We have evidence to the contrary. He didn't know what status Vatican II had, or what its authority was. The matter was deliberately obscured by Paul VI, no doubt precisely to create the confusion that it did actually cause.


The matter was obscured by Paul VI??? Paul VI said directly to Lefebvre to submit himself to the authority of Vatican II. Read, John:
« Comment aujourd’hui quelqu’un pourrait-il se comparer à saint Athanase [allusion à Mgr Lefebvre] tout en osant combattre un concile comme le deuxième concile du Vatican, qui ne fait pas moins autorité, qui est même sous certains aspects plus important encore que celui de Nicée? » (Montini: Lettre à Mgr Lefebvre, 29 juin 1975).

And then John Paul II :
« Pour sa part, le Siège apos¬tolique ne poursuivait qu’un seul but dans ces conversations avec vous [Mgr Lefebvre]: favoriser et sauvegarder cette unité dans l’obéissance à la Révélation divine, traduite et interprétée par le magistère de l’Église, notamment dans les vingt et un conciles œcuméniques, de Nicée à Vatican II » (Lettre de Wojtyla à Mgr Lefebvre, 9 juin 1988).

John Lane wrote:
Yes, but in both cases he raised doubts, and then proceeded practically only to address them on the hypothesis that they had the authority they pretended to have. This is clear from the record.

John, you deny the evidence.

John Lane wrote:
Lefebvre, sermon for the ordinations of 29 June 1978:
"I believe that I have the right to ask these gentlemen who present themselves in offices which were occupied by Cardinals (who were indeed saintly persons and who were defenders of the Church and of the Catholic Faith) it seems to me that I would have the right to ask them, “Are you with the Catholic Church?” “Are you the Catholic Church?" "With whom am I dealing?" If I am dealing with someone who has a pact with Masonry, have I the right to speak with such a person? Have I the duty to listen to them and to obey them?"

His doubts are not transformed into certainties. And he continued to disobey to the “holy Father” giving a non-catholic example of the relation which every man must have with the Pope.

John Lane wrote:
Because they were said to have erred by good men at the time. Read the story of Pascal II on investitures and see the reaction of the saints to his compromise with the emperor. The point isn't whether they really erred or not, but what reaction is legitimate. It is legitimate to resist error, even if, per impossibile, it comes from the pope.

On the contrary, the point is if they erred or not.

John Lane wrote:
I think you misunderstood me. Guerard did not err on the question of whether the Church can exist without a hierarchy. Indeed, it was his orthodoxy on this question which caused him to develop his theory. I asked, "Do you agree that a theory that asserts that there is no hierarchy is heretical?" Guerard certainly agreed with what I am saying on this point. Surely you agree also!


If you say so.


Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:11 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:07 am
Posts: 48
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Gabriele wrote:
Let’s look this disconcerting declaration.
The Pope is against the infallibility.
The Pope is modernist.
The Pope promotes ecumenism.
The conciliar Church [chaired by the Pope] is practically schismatic, virtually excommunicated and she is modernist.


Dear Gabriele, the conciliar church is like when Alice went into Wonderland and everything was weird. But the SSPX seems to think that Wonderland is the real world. They dont seem to smell the coffee that the conciliar church isnt really the Catholic church. Rather they have adapted to Wonderland and they have become another weird part of it. Frankly they make Alice look sober and insightful by comparison. She was totally out of it drugged but she still realised that it wasnt the real world.

Anyone who tries to justify the SSPX is going to end up a part of weird Wonderland.


Last edited by Gandolfo 1958 on Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:30 am, edited 2 times in total.

Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:21 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Let's start from the beginning.

Do either of you accept that it is heretical to say that the entire hierarchy has defected?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:24 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
John Lane wrote:
Do either of you accept that it is heretical to say that the entire hierarchy has defected?

You may wish to define what you mean by "hierarchy". They may have a different definition.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:08 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Dear Ken,

Well, I mean what it says in the theology books - the pope and the bishops with jurisdiction. That is, the hierarchy which governs the Church, the pastors and doctors spoken of by the Vatican Council.

The trouble with most of these discussions is that some very basic concepts are confused.

First, the question of what is theologically probable (i.e. theologically possible) is conflated with what is true.

Second, what is true is conflated with what is theologically certain.

Third, what is implied by a theory is taken as being the actual belief of those who hold that theory.

Fourth, it is held as reasonable to condemn men for not adopting a theory which is a) incomplete, and b) appears to be heretical on the face of it.

An example of each problem.

1. When an SSPX defender points out that the Church tolerates the theory that a manifest heretic would remain pope until deposed, this is taken as the claim that that tolerated opinion is true.

2. Benedict is not pope. This is true, as far as I can determine. I am personally certain of it, and see no intrinsic probability in the alternative possibility. Yet this is still a judgement of a contingent fact, by me. It is a different kind of certitude than the certitude by which we hold that canonisations are infallible, for example. One is a judgement of reason, in the light of faith; the other is the highest certitude under faith, the special certitude that belongs to sacred theology.

3. The theory which holds that Benedict is pope implies that the Church is disunited in the profession of faith. This is heretical. But if this heresy is really implied by this theory (as I believe it is), then it has always been implied by it. But the Church herself tolerated theologians teaching that a non-member (including a public heretic) can hold an office, so she herself has tolerated this theory which has a heretical implication.

4. There is no "complete" published sedevacantist theory except the Guerardian one (and even that has not been published in any language than French, and even in French it was not put into a systematic form and published in a volume, but rather it appeared scattered throughout issues of a journal). Yet non-sedevacantists are attacked for failing to adopt "sedevacantism". This only needs to be stated for its absurdity to be immediately apparent. Can any reasonable and just man condemn another for refusing to accept a theory which, as far as he can see, involves the denial that the Church has a hierarchy? Can anybody really be condemned for not adopting a theory which nobody has even bothered to present in a professional and complete form?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:28 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
All right, John. I understand.

Perhaps it would be best, under the present circumstances, to avoid discussing probable opinions and all others of that ilk, and concentrate only on theologically certain and true matters.

After all, we have no competence nor authority to decide any of those controverted questions, and in many cases, to discuss them might cause confusion with some.

I realize, of course, that to hold completely to this position would be, practically speaking, impossible, but I hope we can at least tend in that direction.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:19 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Ken Gordon wrote:
Perhaps it would be best, under the present circumstances, to avoid discussing probable opinions and all others of that ilk, and concentrate only on theologically certain and true matters.


Well, the Guerardian theory is out, then, because that is at the very best, theologically probable with a very slight intrinsic probability and no real extrinsic probability.

The thesis of St. Robert Bellarmine is arguably theologically certain but good theologians, approved by the Church, have disagreed with it, so that objectively one would have to define it as "common" rather than "certain".

So if we were really to try and follow your suggestion, they're both out.

As for what is "true" that is a different matter altogether. Bellarmine's thesis is true, Guerard's is not, Benedict ain't pope, and the hierarchy still exists. :)

Ken Gordon wrote:
I realize, of course, that to hold completely to this position would be, practically speaking, impossible, but I hope we can at least tend in that direction.


I think what you might hope for is theological precision, so that the "note" of each proposition is understood when it is presented or read.

This is really what I am promoting. There is a great deal of loose rhetoric which is used to conflate things, eliminating necessary distinctions, and which leads to unjust and inaccurate views and judgements of persons.

The main point I am trying to get people to recognise is that for a non-sede traditionalist to shift position, there must be a plausible and well-stated alternative position for him to adopt. At the moment, and this has been the case for forty years, the non-sede trad finds himself abused for holding what is described, inaccurately, as "recognise and resist" whilst as far as he can see, the alternative is to believe that the Catholic Church has no hierarchy, which is heretical.

But I've been saying this for a decade or more. I sense that the rush to schism has been somewhat blunted, and we're now even seeing dogmatic sedevacantists react with horror at being called "dogmatic sedevacantists" so that's excellent. A few more denials like that and we may well be wondering if there are any dogmatic sedevacantists left. :) The next phase is for them to correct their rhetoric so that it stops reflecting the false principles they now eschew.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:37 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
John Lane wrote:
The main point I am trying to get people to recognise is that for a non-sede traditionalist to shift position, there must be a plausible and well-stated alternative position for him to adopt. At the moment, and this has been the case for forty years, the non-sede trad finds himself abused for holding what is described, inaccurately, as "recognise and resist" whilst as far as he can see, the alternative is to believe that the Catholic Church has no hierarchy, which is heretical.


Not recognising Benedict implies the Church has no hierarchy :?:


Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:48 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
John Lane wrote:
Let's start from the beginning.

Do either of you accept that it is heretical to say that the entire hierarchy has defected?


John Lane wrote:
Well, I mean what it says in the theology books - the pope and the bishops with jurisdiction. That is, the hierarchy which governs the Church, the pastors and doctors spoken of by the Vatican Council.


For me, actually there is no hierarchy which governs the Church (this does not mean that the entire hierarchy has defected). And, for you John, who is ruling the Church at this time?


Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:27 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Cam wrote:
Not recognising Benedict implies the Church has no hierarchy :?:


Cam, have a read of this exchange: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Arden ... p=22017581

Now, I thought I had answered the objection fairly thoroughly. Obviously I didn't expect any sedeplenist suddenly to adopt our view immediately after reading the exchange, however something far more interesting happened. I received an email from a sedevacantist, a man of high intelligence and a keen theological register, who stated that "we got pounded pretty hard on the issue of Ordinary Jurisdiction" on that thread.

So if our own people can't be sure we've answered the objection, we can hardly expect non-sedes to see it.

And it's a real objection, in both senses, objective and subjective. That is, it really is something we have to answer in order to have a cogent theory, and it really is the thing that makes non-sedes think our position is impossible.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:41 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
I'll tell you another story which might give an insight into quite how perverted the thinking I'm trying to overcome really is. A priest I know was raised in a traditional family, trained for six years in an SSPX seminary, lived his vocation for quite a number of years, then decided he should join a Conciliar diocese. He is no longer even exclusively Tridentine in the liturgy. He's a cheerful Novus Ordo priest.

What did some of his sedevacantist relatives say about this scandal? "Well at least he is being consistent now."

I would never have believed it possible, but there you have it.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:29 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Cam wrote:
Not recognising Benedict implies the Church has no hierarchy :?:

No. Wrong. Benny is not the entire hierarchy of the Church: only its (purported) physical head. If what you say above is true, then the hierarchy would disappear at the death of a pope, and reappear at the election of his successor. This is not logical.

In point of fact Benny is NOT the pope, and has never been the pope, but he is yet another anti-pope, of which there have been 44 (so far) in the history of the Church.

For those who are mathematically inclined, that works out to 2+ anti-popes for every century of the existence of the Church. I believe there was even at least one in the time of St. Peter. So we shouldn't be either surprised nor in denial. How could we be so lucky as to not have had at least one anti-pope in the past two centuries? To me THAT is not logical either.

The True Head of the Church is Our Lord Jesus Christ, of course. The Pope is simply His representative, His vicar, on earth.

As I understand it, the Hierarchy consists of the True Pope, and any and all faithful bishops in union with him. Although that true Hierarchy might be reduced to a very small number at any one time, it still MUST exist until the end of time.

Again, as I understand it, and agree with, to deny this truth is an heretical action.

The only question I have with regard to the Hierarchy of the Church is, does that include the validly ordained faithful priests too? I am not sure about this, but can see that it would be possible, especially in those places which have no Bishop.

I must also add, of course, that where John and I disagree is in his belief that we have not had a valid pope since the death of Pius XII (or in John's case, the death of Roncalli).

I cannot agree with this belief on at least two grounds (although I most certainly understand WHY John and the other sedevacantists can believe this). Those grounds are that to my mind such a belief calls into question both the Indefectibility of the Church, and its Visibility, both of which are Dogmas.

Although, at this point, we have no absolutely certain proof (although we have practically overwhelming "circumstantial evidence") that we now have, and always have had, a true pope somewhere in the world, with his valid hierarchy, I cannot see how it can be otherwise.

A 50 year, and counting, sede vacante is, to my mind, impossible. There has never been such in the entire history of the Church, the longest sede vacante, historically, being a little over three years long, during which the Church descended into almost total chaos.

This is why I and the few others who believe as I do agree that if you must label us anything other than simply Roman Catholics, the term "sede-impeditist" would be accurate enough.

On almost every other matter with regard to the present state of the Church, we and the sede-vacantists agree.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:55 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
John Lane wrote:
The main point I am trying to get people to recognise is that for a non-sede traditionalist to shift position, there must be a plausible and well-stated alternative position for him to adopt. At the moment, and this has been the case for forty years, the non-sede trad finds himself abused for holding what is described, inaccurately, as "recognise and resist" whilst as far as he can see, the alternative is to believe that the Catholic Church has no hierarchy, which is heretical.


Thank you for the reply above. Why would the non-sede have to believe that the Church has no hierarchy? I can't even think of a "sede" who expounds such a view...and I've read a few! :wink:

Come to think of it...how exactly would that be heretical?


Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:05 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Cam wrote:
Thank you for the reply above. Why would the non-sede have to believe that the Church has no hierarchy? I can't even think of a "sede" who expounds such a view...and I've read a few! :wink:

Come to think of it...how exactly would that be heretical?


Cam, it's the reason that Guerard developed his thesis, and it's the real objection of most sedeplenists. "Persona non grata" on IA, in the thread to which I pointed you, made it very clear. I've heard it from many SSPX priests. It's certainly, to my mind, the great objection to our view.

FCR, on another thread, said that bishops without ordinary jurisdiction are Successors of the Apostles, so that men like Bishops Dolan, Sanborn and Pivarunas are members of the hierarchy. This is nonsense, but it illustrates the problem.

To say that the Church has no hierarchy is heretical because it denies the dogma that there will always be true pastors and doctors (i.e. Successors of the Apostles) in the Church, until the end of time.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:36 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Pax Christi,

Quote:
Bishop Fellay : More than ever we must maintain the knife’s edge traced by our venerated founder. It is not easy to keep, yet absolutely vital for the Church and the treasure of its Tradition. We are Catholic, we recognise the pope and the bishops, but above all else we must keep intact the Faith, source of God’s grace. Therefore we must avoid all that may endanger the Faith, without trying to become a replacement for the Church, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman. Far from us the idea of establishing a parallel Church, of exercising a parallel magisterium!




Well it appears that the SPPX in general, and Bishop Fellay in particular, consider the councilor church has a Catholic pope and magisteruim. I would also think that most of the sede -traditional bishops might see themselves as part of the Hierarchy at least in " potential ".. i.e. waiting for the next true pope to confirm them, as occurred during the almost 3 year interregnum.

On another front, I guess the SIRI thesis Catholics hold that a pope is in the “ woods” e.g. "hidden, but present somewhere", and the sede position as per fide holds; a hierarchy is present somewhere, but hidden ,however, without a pope…..

These are confusing times in which we live.

In Xto,


Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:52 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Vince Sheridan wrote:
On another front, I guess the SIRI thesis Catholics hold that a pope is in the “ woods” e.g. "hidden, but present somewhere", and the sede position as per fide holds; a hierarchy is present somewhere, but hidden ,however, without a pope…..

Vince: I must apologize for not making our position clearer, but I will try again.

First of all, although our position has been called "the Siri Thesis" for a long time, I and some others of us, have never liked that appellation: Cardinal Siri was simply the most likely candidate chosen.

From our close examination of the "circumstantial evidence", much of which I have tried to cover here, we are convinced that someone was elected on the first ballot in the 1958 Conclave, and it really didn't matter who that was. Siri was simply, to our way of seeing the evidence, the most likely prospect. Therefore, to more accurately describe our position, we have preferred to call it "sede-impeditism". That is, that the true holder of the See of Peter is "impeded" from taking his rightful place.

By this, we also would like to make it clear that our position agrees in many ways with the "sede-vacante" position, and that we are, and have been, on the "same page" with regard to the present state of the Church, and the "reigning" anti-popes for many years.

Therefore, to make it more clear concerning which idea you are talking about, I would like to suggest that you use the full terms "sede-vacante" or "sede-impedite" rather than simply "sede", since both our positions ultimately deal with the Seat of Peter.

Furthermore, we firmly believe that our position answers all the questions that both the Guerardian and the sede-vacante positions leave unanswered or, at least, in question. To us, the Guerardian position is too complex and convoluted to be the correct answer (not to mention its doctrinal difficulties), while the sede-vacante position calls into question the Indefectibility of the Church as well as Her Visibility.

To us, our position appears simple, backed up by historical evidence of similar occurrences both in the history of the Church and of the secular world, appears to contain no unanswerable doctrinal difficulties, and does not call into question those qualities of the Church that the sede-vacante position does.

We most certainly admit that our position has no direct evidence for its existence, at least not in the same sense as the sede-vacante position does, but even in courts of law, circumstantial evidence is most often the only evidence on which criminals are finally convicted.

In our research, the sede-vacante position is what finally lead us to the sede-impeditist position; our position is a further extension, development, and refinement of the earlier one. In other words, the sede-vacantists have taken the first steps: now they must continue in order to find the answers to the questions that continue to plague their present position.

As far as we are concerned, the Guerardians are simply out in left field with the rest of the pie-in-the-sky impractical, dreamy, imaginative philosophers. Their theory is much too complex, and appears, at least to us, to violate common sense.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:06 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Cam wrote:
Thank you for the reply above. Why would the non-sede have to believe that the Church has no hierarchy? I can't even think of a "sede" who expounds such a view...and I've read a few!


Here you go Cam, almost in answer to your question: :)

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:
All sedes agree that there is no hierarchy today, no one to obey, so its not disobedience. Newchurch is irrelevant, it isnt the Catholic church.


From here: viewtopic.php?f=11&p=12394#p12394

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:35 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
John Lane wrote:
Cam, have a read of this exchange: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Arden ... p=22017581


Somebody at IA must read the Bellarmine Forums. They've now moved that thread to the Archives, so that non-members can't see it.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jul 20, 2012 3:09 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Cam I'll summarise my view. Let me know what you disagree with, if anything.

I regard that Church as the Church that every other traditional Catholic regards as the Church. I reject the new church, the Conciliar church, which consists of those men who have left the Church to attach themselves to the heresies of our era. I don't believe that this includes every member of the hierarchy, and I don't therefore recognise a different Church from that of any other traditional Catholic. I do, obviously, have a different understanding of the Church from those who think Vatican II was orthodox and that a true renewal has taken place in its wake (i.e. the Conciliarists).

The Conciliar church is a real entity, with a formal programme (the documents and reforms of Vatican II) and a real membership (those men who adhere to the New Religion as a new religion). Its imposition has obscured the true Church, which is therefore in eclipse. I've gone into this in detail in this article: http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbisho ... Church.pdf

But in any case the vital thing is the faith, not the status of persons. Assessing the status of particular persons, which is a question of fact, not of faith, is helpful in keeping us safe, but it's not essential. What is essential is to hold fast to all that the Church has always taught, and to reject heresy and error, and of course to continue faithfully to avail ourselves of the true goods of the Church, the Mass, the Sacraments, and all of the rest of our traditional heritage.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jul 20, 2012 3:36 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
John, thanks for your summary.

As to the point above - are you saying that sedeplenists will point to a comment like Gandolfo's as representative of the sedevacantist thesis?


Sat Jul 21, 2012 8:11 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Cam wrote:
John, thanks for your summary.

As to the point above - are you saying that sedeplenists will point to a comment like Gandolfo's as representative of the sedevacantist thesis?


No, I am saying that it is what they think the sedevacantist thesis really implies, and Gandolfo is quite right in saying that most sedes think this too. No doubt most sedeplenists will happily highlight such comments, but that's not the point. The point is that unless we present a cogent theory that takes into account all of the main facts, and doesn't imply heresy, they won't take our view seriously. And nor should they.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:48 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
What about "you can't declare the pope to be a heretic" - any others that top the list?


Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:22 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Cam,

I'm not sure you're taking this seriously.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jul 21, 2012 1:32 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Cam wrote:
Why would the non-sede have to believe that the Church has no hierarchy? I can't even think of a "sede" who expounds such a view...and I've read a few!


And here's Father Cekada, on Ignis Ardens, formally stating that the hierarchy of the Church can be extinguished in actu, as long as the possibility for its restoration remains (i.e. it remains in potentia). My answer follows.

FatherCekada wrote:
Your first objection — there MUST be at least ONE diocesan bishop, somewhere, who ACTUALLY possesses ordinary jurisdiction, otherwise formal apostolic succession is broken — is a familiar one and easily answered.

Ordinary jurisdiction ultimately flows down from the Supreme Pontiff alone.

When the Apostolic See is vacant, however, "the universal church is in an imperfect state; she is like an amputated body, not an integral body... the Church is then acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power." (Cajetan, De Comparatione Auct. Papae et Concilii 74).

Consequently, until a new pope is elected, no new diocesan bishop can be appointed and endowed with ordinary jurisdiction.

But even if this headless state goes on for a very long time, formal apostolic succession is not broken thereby nor is ordinary jurisdiction lost forever, because the Church always possesses the power of the papacy POTENTIALLY. She can elect a pope who will once again ACTUALLY exercise ordinary jurisdiction, and appoint diocesan bishops to do the same.


Father,

I can't see that the parallel between the apostolic succession and the papacy is complete. (In fact, I am in violent disagreement with the notion - I think your thesis to be heretical.)

The papacy always exists, but the pope does not always exist. Therefore we may say that the pope always exists in potentia. But the episcopate always exists in actu.

Or, in plain English, there will always actually be true pastors and doctors in the Church, until the end of time, as the Vatican Council taught very clearly and directly.

Quote:
Palmieri D., Tractatus de Romano Pontifice, 1902.

Hinc Apostolus ad Ephes. IV, 11-12, ait quod Deus dedit quosdam quidem Apostolos... quosdam autem pastores et doctores ad consummationem Sanctorum in opus ministerii, in aedificationem corporis Christi. Ex quo patet necesse est ut actio eorum qui enumerati sunt perduret quoad consummandi sunt sancti et corpus Christi aedificandum. Dupliciter vero ipsa perdurare potest, vel quatenus eius efficacia maneat, vel quatenus continua successione semper actu existat. Iam vero patet hoc alterum quoque requiri; dicuntur enim a Deo illi dati in opus ministerii, quod actuale requirit exercitium potestatis. Porro Apostoli quatenus tales secundum totam amplitudinem potestatis perpetui esse non debebant; prophetas quoque et evangelistas, prout speciale munus significatur, perpetuos esse non debuisse satis constat; restat ergo ut pastores et doctores quatenus tales, quorum est proprium ministerium quo aedificatur corpus Christi et consummantur sancti, perpetua successione perdurent, quorum ministerium illud quoque obtinetur, ut ministerii aliorum quod transiit efficacia semper perseveret. Ex divina igitur institutione debent esse in Ecclesia post Apostolos ii qui sint pastores et doctores, qui nempe habeant potestatem regendi, docendi simulque sanctificandi. (Poleg. Num. 17).

Fieri autem potest, ut Christus sit usque ad consummationem saeculi cum Apostolis docentibus alterutro modo: vel quatenus ipsae personae Apostolorum victurae erant usque ad finem saeculi, vel quatenus hi continuos successores erant habituri. Nam et in hac hypotesi Christus proprie locutus esset, dicens se futurum cum Apostolis usque ad finem saeculi; quod enim toti successioni quis dicere velit, recte primis affirmat spectatis ut primis, habituris perpetuos heredes. Iam vero priorem modum ipsa historia excludit; restat ergo alter. Igitur Magisterium Apostolicum in successoribus Apostolorum perpetuo durabit et Christo auxiliante munere suo feliciter fungentur discipulos faciens, docens h. e. actu se exercens. (Num. 27).


Here's a very bad translation from Google, but it will give sufficient of the meaning for those who have no Latin.

Quote:
Hence Paul says. 4, 11-12, he said that God gave some apostles ... and some pastors and teachers, to the perfecting of the Saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. From this it is clear it is necessary that the action continues as long as he shall have an end of those who were numbered of the holy body of Christ, and build upon. But it can last out in two ways, either to the extent of their influence remains, or as a continuous succession of ever actually existed. Now it is obvious that this, too, the other is required; have been given to him, for they are called by God in the work of the ministry, which requires the exercise of actual power. Moreover, according to its whole of the Apostle of the extent and in so far as such did not have the power of perpetual existence; also, and the prophets, evangelists, and is signified as a special gift, that there ought not to have it is quite certain: it remains, therefore, that in so far as such pastors and teachers, of which the building, which is proper to the body of Christ and are consummated in the ministry of the Holy, a perpetual succession of long, whose task it is also obtained, which is passed to the service of others always remain effective. By divine institution, therefore, ought to be in the Church after the Apostles those who are to be pastors and teachers, namely, those who have the power to rule, of sanctifying, teaching at the same time. (Poleg. Num. 17).

Now, it can be made, as far as the end of the world, so that Christ is with the apostles teach the one with the other as follows: either to the extent they would have lived as far as the very person of the Apostle to the end of the world, or in succession, in so far as these were to have successors. For in Christ, according to this hypothesis, properly speaking, he had spoken to, saying that he would be with the apostles, even to the end of the world: for that which one wishes to say to the whole succession, it is rightly affirms that the first place, are you looking at as the first place, a legal heirs in perpetuity. Now, however, excludes the very history of the first method: it remains then the other. Therefore, the teaching of the Apostles' successors of the Apostles and Christ will last forever with the help of his task successfully engaged in making disciples, teaching h. out. the act of exercising itself. (Number 27).

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:21 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
John Lane wrote:
Cam wrote:
Why would the non-sede have to believe that the Church has no hierarchy? I can't even think of a "sede" who expounds such a view...and I've read a few!


And here's Father Cekada, on Ignis Ardens


John, could you pass me the link please? I can´t find it.

Quote:
formally stating that the hierarchy of the Church can be extinguished in actu, as long as the possibility for its restoration remains (i.e. it remains in potentia).


This is not new to me :)

FatherCekada wrote:
Your first objection — there MUST be at least ONE diocesan bishop, somewhere, who ACTUALLY possesses ordinary jurisdiction, otherwise formal apostolic succession is broken — is a familiar one and easily answered.

Ordinary jurisdiction ultimately flows down from the Supreme Pontiff alone.

When the Apostolic See is vacant, however, "the universal church is in an imperfect state; she is like an amputated body, not an integral body... the Church is then acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power." (Cajetan, De Comparatione Auct. Papae et Concilii 74).

Consequently, until a new pope is elected, no new diocesan bishop can be appointed and endowed with ordinary jurisdiction.

But even if this headless state goes on for a very long time, formal apostolic succession is not broken thereby nor is ordinary jurisdiction lost forever, because the Church always possesses the power of the papacy POTENTIALLY. She can elect a pope who will once again ACTUALLY exercise ordinary jurisdiction, and appoint diocesan bishops to do the same.


Quote:
Father,

I can't see that the parallel between the apostolic succession and the papacy is complete.


Indeed they are mixing two different things. Did you get an answer?

Quote:
(In fact, I am in violent disagreement with the notion - I think your thesis to be heretical.)


Well they are more benign, they think your thesis is "wrong" and contrary to the facts :wink:

Quote:
The papacy always exists, but the pope does not always exist. Therefore we may say that the pope always exists in potentia. But the episcopate always exists in actu.


I agree.

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

Leon Bloy


Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:44 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
John Lane wrote:
in plain English, there will always actually be true pastors and doctors in the Church, until the end of time, as the Vatican Council taught very clearly and directly.


Perhaps we are at the end of time...whose to say the end of time is a much longer period than we think it might be. Just a thought.


Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:21 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
John, could you pass me the link please? I can´t find it.


Here you go, Cristian: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Arden ... p=22022219

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:02 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
John, could you pass me the link please? I can´t find it.


Here you go, Cristian: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Arden ... p=22022219


Thanks John!

Very interesting topic there!

Just one question. Is this correct?

Fr. Cekada said:
Quote:
Consequently, until a new pope is elected, no new diocesan bishop can be appointed and endowed with ordinary jurisdiction.


What about the Patriarchs and Archbishops for example? I always thought they could confer jurisdiction in their provinces, even while the See was vacant or in the first centuries when communication was much more difficult than now (if memory serves, Grea says something to this effect).

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

Leon Bloy


Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:03 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
ELEMENTS OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, REV. S. B. SMITH, D.D., 1887

Vol. 1. ECCLESIASTICAL PERSONS, PP. 322-323

527. Patriarchs are bishops who preside not merely over one diocese or province, but over several provinces or districts. The dignity itself of patriarchs dates back to the apostles; the name came into use only from the time of the Council of Chalcedon. Rights formerly possessed by Patriarchs: They had power chiefly, 1, to consecrate metropolitans and give them the pallium; 2, to assemble and preside at patriarchal or national councils; 3. to receive appeals from the sentence of metropolitans. These rights may be summed up thus: The jurisdiction exercised by patriarchs over metropolitans was similar to that exercised in turn by metropolitans over their suffragan bishops. The four great patriarchates of the Eastern Church-namely, of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem-having fallen into schism and heresy, have long ago become extinct. The Holy See, however, in order to preserve the memory of these patriarchates, still creates titular patriarchs of these sees, who reside in Rome; they have only the title of patriarchs, but no jurisdiction, excepting, however, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was sent to his see by Pope Pius IX., and occupies it at present.

Of Patriarchs, Primates, and Metropolitans.

Besides these, there are still in the Oriental Church several actual patriarchs in communion with the Holy See. Thus, the Chaldeans, Melchites, Maronites, Syrians, and Armenians, who are united with the Catholic Church, have their patriarchs, to whom the Holy See usually grants faculties similar to those enjoyed by the patriarchs of old. The Roman Pontiff is the patriarch of the Western or Latin Church. Besides, there are in the Latin Church the patriarchs of Lisbon, Venice, and the West Indies; they are called patriarchae minores, and have only the title, not the jurisdiction, of patriarchs. The patriarchate itself is not of divine but of ecclesiastical institution.


Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:48 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Cam wrote:
John Lane wrote:
in plain English, there will always actually be true pastors and doctors in the Church, until the end of time, as the Vatican Council taught very clearly and directly.


Perhaps we are at the end of time...whose to say the end of time is a much longer period than we think it might be. Just a thought.


Well even if that were true, it wouldn't drag this heresy into the bounds of orthodoxy.

The hierarchy will exist until Our Lord's second coming in glory, to judge the world.

Every Christian raised in the faith of his baptism knows that the Church has bishops who rule and teach. It's so fundamental to the constitution of the Church, that a Church without Sucessors of the Apostles is inconceivable.

And in case anybody is in any doubt about the meaning of "potentially" as opposed to "actually": Some thing that is in potentia does not exist; it merely may exist, can exist, might exist, but certainly does not exist. During the vacancy of the Holy See, the pope is in potentia. He doesn't exist, but he can do so. The Church always radically has the power to give herself a new visible head. She has the potential to fill the vacancy. To apply this to the entire episcopal college, and say that it too can cease to exist actually, as long as the potential remains for it to exist actually in future, is directly contrary to dogmatic truth. It's a heresy.

I can't sufficiently express my disgust and disappointment at this revelation. I simply didn't believe he held this view, despite various indications that he did. And the pertinacious attitude in maintaining it is scandalous beyond measure. How Fr. Cekada differs from all the other doctrinal criminals of our time is for him to show. This is the absolute end, as far as I'm concerned.

Guerardianism is nuts, but it's orthodox; this thesis is heretical.

Let me just say one thing more: You don't get to be considered a traditional Catholic by attacking other heretics. You have to profess the true faith yourself.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Aug 04, 2012 6:20 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
John Lane wrote:
formally stating that the hierarchy of the Church can be extinguished in actu, as long as the possibility for its restoration remains (i.e. it remains in potentia).


This is not new to me :)


It is to me!

Please, tell me where you heard this before?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Aug 04, 2012 6:23 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
John Lane wrote:
Let me just say one thing more: You don't get to be considered a traditional Catholic by attacking other heretics. You have to profess the true faith yourself.

Indeed! Good for you!

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sat Aug 04, 2012 6:25 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.