It is currently Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:05 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacum" 
Author Message

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 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?


Well this was precisely the reason I was dismissed from MHT, from defending exactly what you are defending here and on IA, the existence in act of the Catholic hierarchy :)
There were other issues as well, but this one was the main reason.

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

Leon Bloy


Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:05 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
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Well this was precisely the reason I was dismissed from MHT, from defending exactly what you are defending here and on IA, the existence in act of the Catholic hierarchy :)
There were other issues as well, but this one was the main reason.


Well, I had no idea. Good for you, Cristian!

But didn't Bishop Sanborn agree with you? Is this dogma not the very reason that Guerard developed his Thesis?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:03 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:
Well this was precisely the reason I was dismissed from MHT, from defending exactly what you are defending here and on IA, the existence in act of the Catholic hierarchy :)
There were other issues as well, but this one was the main reason.


Well, I had no idea. Good for you, Cristian!


:D

Quote:
But didn't Bishop Sanborn agree with you? Is this dogma not the very reason that Guerard developed his Thesis?


Well unless the words: "you say that it MUST exist a Bishop with jurisdiction, but this is wrong" mean what they sound, no, Bp Sanborn didn´t agree with me, not at all.
I don´t know, I guess they would say that Guerard`s thesis is good in the sense it solves the continuity in potency both of the hierarchy and of the electors, so they don´t need any jurisdiction in act.
I can´t imagine how can Fr. Cekada solve the existence even in potency of the electors and of the hierarchy if he understands, the way he does cn 188 etc. At least des Lauriers gave an answer to that.

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

Leon Bloy


Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:42 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
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Well unless the words: "you say that it MUST exist a Bishop with jurisdiction, but this is wrong" mean what they sound, no, Bp Sanborn didn´t agree with me, not at all.
I don´t know, I guess they would say that Guerard`s thesis is good in the sense it solves the continuity in potency both of the hierarchy and of the electors, so they don´t need any jurisdiction in act.
I can´t imagine how can Fr. Cekada solve the existence even in potency of the electors and of the hierarchy if he understands, the way he does cn 188 etc. At least des Lauriers gave an answer to that.


Yes, I see your point.

Oh my, I'm naive. I could sense that this was there, but I kept refusing to believe it. Even when I called Cekada on it on IA a few weeks ago, and demanded that he deny what FCR had said there, I thought he would do so, that he saw how crazy it was.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Aug 04, 2012 2:25 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:
Guerardianism is nuts, but it's orthodox;

Well, I would say, rather, that the Guerardian thesis is an irrational explanation of a true situation: the present one. It somewhat reminds me of a theological version of the reductionist underpinnings for modern "science" (so called).

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sat Aug 04, 2012 6:03 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:
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.


Here are my posts from that IA thread:

__________________________________________________

The idea that the hierarchy is extinct if Paul VI, JPII, and Benedict have not truly been popes is obviously a very serious objection, and Guerard des Lauriers recognised it as such and developed his theory in order to address it. However there does not appear to be any need to adopt novelties such as his in order to answer this objection.

The situation in the Church is certainly confused, but these principles ought to assist clarity.

1. The acts of a false pope who was considered pope by most members of the Church would be validated by supplied jurisdiction due to common error. The exception would be acts such as accepting the resignation of Bishop de Castro Mayer in order to replce him with a Modernist, or the suppression of the SSPX, or the 1988 declaration of excommunications.

2 A non-Catholic cannot validly possess an office in the Church.

3. Merely going along with the reforms of V2 (e.g. Cardinals Siri, Bacci, Ottaviani, Archbishops Graber and Pintonello), did not suffice to put a man out of the Church, precisely because the reforms appeared to come from the Church.

4. Jurisdiction and orders are meant, by divine law, to coincide in the same persons. By divine law a woman cannot maintain habitual jurisdiction. But there is no divine law preventing jurisdiction being maintained by a layman who is a Catholic. This is not controversial. The layman ought not to possess jurisdiction, and is obliged to seek the relevant degree of orders once he has jurisdiction, but he maintains it prior to receiving the relevant orders.

Therefore many of the appointments to the episcopate by Paul VI, and possibly even JP2, would have been valid by supplied jurisdiction. Those ordinaries who are Catholics would truly be the ordinaries of their dioceses. Who these men are may become clear only after some climax of the crisis and a consequent reaction to orthodoxy, but the lack of clarity on our behalf doesn't change the fact that the true ordinaries are objectively visible. This is analogous to the situation which Cardinal Franzelin held to be the case during the Great Western Schism, when there was a true pope at all times, of the Roman line, but that this reality was impossibly obscure to nearly all. He was objectively visible as true pope, but this was not able to be determined by all who needed to know it.

A crass application of the notion of the Conciliar Church doesn't settle the matter. There is certainly a real social body which can be designated by that name, and it's certainly not possible to belong both to it and to the Catholic Church, but which men belong to each is not always clear. In many cases it's obviously unclear.

A fuller explanation is in the last part of this essay: Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Conciliar_Church.pdf

__________________________________________________

persona_non_grata wrote:
1. You mentioned that the modern popes are recognized by "most members of the Church". Then how do you justify refusing to acknowledge a universally accepted pope, which, according to the teaching of the Church, is an infallible sign of a papal election?



It isn't true that universal acceptance = certainly true pope.

What the theologians say is that the peaceful adherence of the whole Church to a pope is proof that he really is pope. Note the words "peaceful adherence".

The meaning of those terms is explained by examining the foundation of this doctrine, which is that the preaching of the hierarchy is the proximate (i.e. near) rule of faith for the whole Church. In other words, Catholics learn their faith from the living magisterium, not from reading Denzinger. The living magisterium is nothing to do with the Modernist notion of living tradition. It merely indicates that the teaching office is a permanently present reality exercised by the bishops, under the authority of the pope, and brings the same faith to the men of every age. It is infallible, and must be.

Now because the living magisterium is the proximate rule of faith of the Church, and because the Church is infallible, both actively and passively - that is, infallible in its teaching, and infallible in believing - then it follows that the whole Church cannot believe the doctrine of a false pope. To do so would be to fail in the faith, precisely by accepting as infallibly true, doctrines which emanate from a source which is not infallible.

This is why the theologians say the whole Church cannot peacefully adhere to a false pope. They say that the whole Church cannot adhere to a false rule of faith, and the pope is our proximate rule of faith (along with the bishops under his authority, of course).

Now, you tell me, which Catholics treated Paul VI as their proximate rule of faith? Which Catholics treated Paul VI's bishops as their proximate rule of faith? The answer, plainly, is that only those who adopted his errors did so, and they left the Church by doing so (at least, their faith was damaged severely). It is precisely the ones who didn't treat him as their rule of faith that remained Catholic. As Archbishop Lefebvre put it, is it necessary to become Protestants in order to remain Catholic?

persona_non_grata wrote:
2. If I understood correctly, you said that not every person who accepts Vatican II is a heretic.



That's right. Here's Archbishop Lefebvre naming some of them, and also indicating that others exist, the names of which he obviously knows, but does not reveal:
Quote:
Were there any bishops supporting you [at Vatican II]?

Yes. Many bishops supported my stand.

How many bishops?

There were in excess of 250 bishops. They had even formed themselves into a group for the purpose of defending the true Catholic faith.

What happened to all of these supporters?

Some are dead; some are dispersed throughout the world; many still support me in their hearts but are frightened to lose the position, which they feel may be useful at a later time.

Is anybody supporting you today (1978)?

Yes. For instance, Bishop Pintinello from Italy; Bishop Castro de Mayer from Brazil. Many other bishops and cardinals often contact me to express their support but wish at this date to remain anonymous.



persona_non_grata wrote:
3. You say that it is not possible to belong to both the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Church, and you mention the words of +Lefebvre. However, isn't it true that +Lefebvre considered that the popes belong to the Conciliar Church (he made that clear from the start, after all, they promulgated the 'reforms') but also to the Catholic Church, since he went to talk with them and addressed them as Holy Father, and recognized them as popes?



Well, you really need to read my articles on Archbishop Lefebvre, especially the one linked above, and try and understand the Archbishop's thought.

In brief, he said that those who adhere to the errors of Vatican II, despite being aware that these errors are condemned by the Church, are not Catholics. But those who went along with the practical programme of Vatican II, without accepting its errors (see the names above for examples), remained Catholics.

He put the popes into a special category. For example, when questioned by the CDF in 1979 he replied that he was not sure whether Paul VI really promulgated the New Mass. Likewise he gave the benefit of the doubt to JP2 for a few years, then he formed the judgement that the latter wasn't a Catholic, and began speculating that he wasn't pope either.

In 1986 the Archbishop began putting up trial balloons to see if declaring the See of Rome vacant would be practically possible. He found very quickly that this would split the traditional Catholic milieu into pieces. He decided not to do so, but there is plenty of evidence that his own private opinion was that JP2 was not the pope.

__________________________________________________

Sede-privationism is an ambiguous term as it's used around the place. It was coined by Fr. Paul Morgan's father, Bill Morgan, and he meant by it the Thesis of Cassiciacum of Guerard des Lauriers. Others these days use it to refer to the minority opinion among theologians that a heretical pope is not automatically deposed, but must be deposed by the Church. So I'm not sure which you mean, and either would imply some kind of power remaining in a true pope who became a heretic.

Of course, I don't accept the idea that a true pope can ever become a heretic, so I'm not really open to the minority opinion theory.

The difference between a false pope's acts being validated by supplied jurisdiction, and the Guerardian theory, is stark. In the latter, the notion is that none of the acts of the "material pope" would be valid except those which have a purely "legal" character and are necessary for the "legal" continuity of the Church. In this way the apointments of Paul VI to the office of cardinal were to be considered "materially" valid, and on that theory if the cardinals recovered their faith they would automatically become true cardinals and would be capable of validly electing the pope.

None of this is found in the theological literature. It's a complete novelty. And it's unnecessary.

Supplied jurisdiction is a concept which is extensively treated in the literature, certainly applies in cases of common error, and appears to solve the problem.

Likewise the election of a pope in the absence of any cardinals is treated explicitly in the literature, by St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal Cajetan, and countless others since. It's a non-problem also. Either the remaining members of the Roman clergy could elect (i.e. all those who have recieved first tonsure in Rome, and have not apostatised, or have recovered their faith after apostasy), or failing that, an imperfect general council could elect.

The situation is certainly confused and mysterious, but it is not necessary to abandon any of the truths found in the theology manuals in order to solve it.

__________________________________________________

The dogmatic pronouncements of a general council are infallible. The preaching of all the bishops throughout the world, in union with the pope, is infallible.

Catholics who remained faithful, rejected doctrines that fell within both categories.

Now, in order to explain this, which was necessary, some have postulated that Paul VI was not pope, and therefore the very lynchpin of infallibility was not present, and some have tried to re-write the theology of the Church in respect of infallibility instead. You apparently follow the novel theories on infallibility. I can't do that, because I thnk they are erroneous and of course dangerous.

__________________________________________________

Possibilities are all we need, and the notion that our thesis is impossible immediately falls. This is logic.

If somebody were to say, no man could have sailed a boat from Europe or Africa to South America with the technology of the Ancient World, then one only needs a single successful voyage made in a reed boat in the present era to see that the thesis that such a thing is impossible cannot be maintained. Thor Heyerdahl did it, and revolutionised several human sciences.

In the case of V2, we know that Cardinal Siri was personally orthodox, continued to profess the faith, and yet he allowed the reforms of Vatican II throughout his archdiocese. This is the very heart of the mystery of the crisis in the Church. A whole new religion was implicit in these reforms, but not every priest or bishop who adopted the reforms adopted that new religion, and thereby left the Church. So far I don't think there would be any disagreement between you and I, or indeed any traditional Catholic. And it's a mystery we all need to explain, one way or another.

I don't know who amongst the Novus Ordo hierarchy might still be Catholics, but it would be an interesting exercise to run through the well-known conservative members of it and try and work it out in each case. For example, you've got men like Charles Chaput, who is capable of this kind of comment: “Let us preach Jesus Christ with all the energy of our lives. And let us support each other – whatever the cost – so that when we make our accounting to the Lord, we will be numbered among the faithful and courageous, and not the cowardly or the evasive, or those who compromised until there was nothing left of their convictions; or those who were silent when they should have spoken the right word at the right time.”

The point is that true faith is compatible with material error. One would need in each case to work out whether somebody like this maintains the errors he no doubt expresses despite being conscious of the fact that they conflict with the teaching of the Church. I don't know much about this man, so I'm not making any case for his orthodoxy. I just point out that unless in each case we form the certain judgement that this baptised man left the Church, we have no business saying that all such men left the Church. And such an exercise would be a very large project, I think you will agree.

For some reason when somebody says "Paul VI wasn't a Catholic," non-sedes think, "Oh, that means everybody else isn't Catholic too!" I have no idea why that is. Perhaps you could explain.

And yes, I agree with you that the blanket statement, "The hierarchy of the Novus Ordo is not the hierarchy of the Catholic Church" is problematic. I've said it myself, of course. It depends upon what is meant by it, just as Archbishop Lefebvre's assertion that the Novus Ordo reforms are a whole new religion must be understood correctly, with appropriate distinctions. What he didn't mean, was that all who didn't immediately reject every reform thereby adopted the new religion and left the Church.

So that's one point.

Another is to consider the multitude of retired bishops around the world, living in nursing homes, retirement homes, etc. If any of these are orthodox, it is quite possible they retain their ordinary jurisdiction. The reason for this is that in order to be valid, a resignation must be accepted by a lawful superior. But if JP2 wasn't pope, then all of the resignations made to him by bishops would, on the face of it, be invalid.

In a general reaction to orthodoxy, after some cataclysm that awakens the world from its worldy slumber, such men could be approached and called to a general council, at which a pope could be elected, just as happened at Constance.

Another possibility arises from the fact that an office is a stable position to which is permanently attached some power, of orders or jurisdiction. In the case of episcopal sees, the power is ordinary jurisdiction. Most of the sees in the world today were established by indubitable popes. A man elected by the clergy of a diocese to such an episcopal see, would receive ordinary jurisdiction immediately, jurisdiction which comes as it must from the Roman Pontiff, because the Roman Pontiff attached it to the see permanently. He would obviously make some declaration that he holds his office only by appeal to the future approval of the Roman Pontiff, but prior to that approval actually being received, he would have the office, truly de jure and not just de facto. This argument is at least probable, which is all we need.

Anyway, no matter how unlikely you think any of these possibilities is, they must be eliminated completely before one could assert that they are not possibilities.

One only needs to read the history of the Great Western Schism and some of the theological/canonical discussion of it by subsequent experts to realise that the most absurdly unlikely things may actually have been factual. But unlikely things happen all the time. It was unlikely that the Titanic would sink, even more unlikely that she would do so on her maiden voyage. It was unlikely that the title afixed to the top of the Cross would survive, legible, including its three languages - Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. You can go and see it in Rome today. It was buried on Golgotha for three hundred years and dug up by St. Helen. It was unlikely that a man could cross the Atlantic in a boat made of reeds. It's been done. It was unlikely that there was an objectively visible true pope all through the forty years of the Great Western Schism, yet Cardinal Franzelin says that is true, even though he was not recognised by miracle-working saints like St. Vincent Ferrer.

Vatican II was about the most unlikely event in the history of the Church. Yet it happened.

The real difference between somebody like me, and the dogmatic sedeplenist, is not in where we think the Church is. The real difference is actually very narrow, yet very, very important. The dogmatic sedeplenist effectively reduces the whole question to whether Benedict is pope. Then everything must be made to conform to that dogma. The dogmatic sedevacantist does the same thing, in reverse. He makes recognition of Benedict the one shibboleth for membership in the Church, and ends with a little sliver of a church of which he and his friends are the only members.

Archbishop Lefebvre was not a dogmatic sedeplenist.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:00 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
OK, here's a group with the same theory as Fr. Cekada: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/20 ... with-rome/

Quote:
...he was ordained by bishops with the Apostolic Succession and has passed this on to other bishops he has ordained, but all of this is without the sanction of the Catholic Church.

A report in the Italian newspaper La Stampa last week said that Bishop Bell, who calls himself Archbishop of London, had prepared a “curse” against Bishop Mario Meini of the Diocese of Fiesole, Italy, but he said that this was incorrect.

I issued a decree of anathema because he said I wasn’t a bishop. Only the Holy See can make such a declaration,” he said.


OK, that very last sentence is more Guerardian than Cekadian, but you get the picture. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:00 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:21 am
Posts: 55
Location: California, USA
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Gentlemen,

Allow me to say that I have wholeheartedly enjoyed this discussion. This seems to touch upon the "rub" of sedevacantism, no?

In any case, it was not until I listened to John's debate with Dr. Sungenis that I became convinced that the Holy See was vacant. John mentioned that believing the conciliar popes were not pope did not mean that every bishop somehow fell from their office in 1958, '62, '65, or what have you. Prior to this, I associated sedevacantism with the extreme Dimond, home alone variety: there is no hierarchy, we have no idea where a new hierarchy will come from, and anyone who disagrees with us is a heretic. It is no wonder that we have some men claiming that Pius IX was the last true pope, and sacrilegiously calling St. Pius X an "antipope." After learning that this was not actual "sedevacantism," only human respect stood in my way.


Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:53 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 !

John Lane posted :

Quote:
Another is to consider the multitude of retired bishops around the world, living in nursing homes, retirement homes, etc. If any of these are orthodox, it is quite possible they retain their ordinary jurisdiction. The reason for this is that in order to be valid, a resignation must be accepted by a lawful superior. But if JP2 wasn't pope, then all of the resignations made to him by bishops would, on the face of it, be invalid.



Why wouldnt " supplied" jurisdiction of the non-Popes apply here to effect the resignation? It seems you argue elsewhere that appointments by the non-popes can be valid by supplied jurisdiction, it would seem to follow that accepting a resignation would as well..

Anyway, I think it is moot..... the retiring bishop/s sure accepted the resignation and walked off into retirement.

In Xto,
Vincent


Fri Jan 04, 2013 9:01 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
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Why wouldnt " supplied" jurisdiction of the non-Popes apply here to effect the resignation? It seems you argue elsewhere that appointments by the non-popes can be valid by supplied jurisdiction, it would seem to follow that accepting a resignation would as well..


Yes, that was Fr. Cekada's argument also. This goes to the very heart of the doctrine concerning the supply of jurisdiction, which is only ever for the good of souls. Recall St. Robert Bellarmine's proofs for the proposition that those who are outside the Church cannot possess habitual jurisdiction:

Quote:
Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which appears in Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: "It is evident that he [who has been excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted [i.e. deprived of office, by judgment of Nestorius], anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence."

And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: "The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever."

St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.


So all of the jurisdictional acts of a heretic are null, unless and until the Church supplies jurisdiction for one or more of those acts, for the good of souls. An unjust excommunication, for example, could not conceivably attract supplied jurisdiction.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
Anyway, I think it is moot..... the retiring bishop/s sure accepted the resignation and walked off into retirement.


Vince, the whole point is that resigning an episcopal office is not and cannot be a unilateral decision, outside of the cases explicitly enumerated in canon law (esp. c. 188). The Bishop of Jerusalem could walk off into the desert and never go near his diocese again, but he'd remain the Bishop of Jerusalem for as long as his (in this case tacit) resignation was not accepted by the Holy Father. Canon 190 states that only when a resignation has been accepted does an office become vacant.

Further, a resignation made through error, as the resignation of Bishop de Castro Mayer certainly was (he erred in thinking that JP2 was pope, for a start), is invalid. Canon 185 is explicit. So even if one did not accept the first argument (acceptance is required), this second argument covers every single case in the hypothesis of a vacant Holy See.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:05 pm
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:
The Bishop of Jerusalem could walk off into the desert and never go near his diocese again, but he'd remain the Bishop of Jerusalem for as long as his (in this case tacit) resignation was not accepted by the Holy Father. Canon 190 states that only when a resignation has been accepted does an office become vacant.



John, this is not the same situation as a bishop that accepts the pope as valid, and had reached the age of retirement, asks for, and receives resignation from the person he thinks is the pope.

Why did you create this very imperfect analogy? It is not even close to the situation of a bishop that holds the pope is valid and seeks resgination based on the edict that he has reached the age of retirement.

In Xto,
Vincent


Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:56 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
Vince, it's not a parallel, it's an illustration of a principle by isolating it, taking it to its logical conclusion.

You know the whole "age of retirement" thing is pure Novus Ordo novelty? Bishops before V2 were bishops for life.

The point is that if a bishop retires, which he may well volunteer to do, his resignation is simply not valid until and unless it is accepted by his lawful superior - the pope. Without a pope, a bishop cannot resign, period (leaving aside the tacit resignations, accepted by the law itself, foreseen by canon 188).

One could argue that in the case of a Catholic non-pope (e.g. Benedict XIII during the Great Western Schism), the resignation of a bishop might be valid because the acceptance (by the non-pope) is validated by supplied jurisdiction. This, I say, would be arguable given that the resignation was objectively for the common good. But in the case of a heretic-pope who desires to accept the resignation of a de Castro Mayer in order to replace him with a Modernist who will (and did) impose the New Mass on the diocese of Campos, there cannot be any question of the Church supplying jurisdiction, because the good of souls is not in view, but rather their destruction.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:42 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:
You know the whole "age of retirement" thing is pure Novus Ordo novelty? Bishops before V2 were bishops for life.



Indeed the mandatory retirement age " is a post-V2 novelty, however, Bishops before that would retire, or in some case be asked to retire due to health issues.

Quote:
The point is that if a bishop retires, which he may well volunteer to do, his resignation is simply not valid until and unless it is accepted by his lawful superior - the pope. Without a pope, a bishop cannot resign, period (leaving aside the tacit resignations, accepted by the law itself, foreseen by canon 188).


Understood, but in the case of a non-pope having " supplied" jurisdiction to select a bishop, the resignation can also be accepted by " supplied" jurisdiction.

Quote:
. But in the case of a heretic-pope who desires to accept the resignation of a de Castro Mayer in order to replace him with a Modernist who will (and did) impose the New Mass on the diocese of Campos, there cannot be any question of the Church supplying jurisdiction, because the good of souls is not in view, but rather their destruction.


I think Campos is a murky situation; Castro Mayer accepted resignation and retired. If he did in fact retain ordinary jurisdiction, it didn’t help the souls of his diocese. And the good bishop passed to his reward in 1994. In the most common example of bishop retirement, I think it can be argued that if supplied jurisdiction makes the appt, then supplied jurisdiction also accepts the resignation, we are now referring to bishops that are offering the new mass, sacraments, and teachings of the V2 church.

In Xto,
Vincent


Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:35 pm
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:
we are now referring to bishops that are offering the new mass, sacraments, and teachings of the V2 church.

...almost all of whom have been invalidly "ordained" and aren't real bishops anyway. Supplied jurisdiction does no good in this case whatever...

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:36 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Ken, it's true that supplied jurisdiction is no use in making valid the sacramental acts of a non bishop. But I think that John is arguing supplied jurisdiction in cases of the exercise of the munus regendi, the power of governing in the church.


Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:52 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
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Indeed the mandatory retirement age " is a post-V2 novelty, however, Bishops before that would retire, or in some case be asked to retire due to health issues.


Vince, I can't think of such a case. Generally what happened was an elderly bishop was granted an auxiliary who had the right of succession, so that the diocese could be governed whatever circumstances developed.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
Understood, but in the case of a non-pope having " supplied" jurisdiction to select a bishop, the resignation can also be accepted by " supplied" jurisdiction.


The Church supplies jurisdiction for a specific act, and only for that specific act. Per modum actus. So, to assert what you are asserting, you need to show that the case fulfils the requirements laid down by the Church:- and the primary one is that the act furthers the salvation of souls. I think it's easy enough to see that the appointment of a Catholic to an episcopal see, when that see is truly vacant (i.e. de facto and de iure), is in itself a good thing and good for souls. I cannot see how imposing a mandatory retirement age on bishops, then accepting their resignations as they reach that age and obediently hand in their resignation notices, serves the good of souls. In at least many cases it would be manifestly contrary to the good of souls.

In the de Castro Mayer case, his retirement certainly harmed souls. Campos would have been governed by a Catholic, and a true Successor of the Apostles, for a further ten years from 1981 until his death in 1991. Instead, the New Mass was inflicted by the Modernist wolf who was appointed by Wojtyla.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
If he did in fact retain ordinary jurisdiction, it didn’t help the souls of his diocese.


Yes, but it could have. He retained a potency which was radically for the good of souls.

The point is obscured by such considerations, however, in that it's not about what can be done, or could have been done, but purely an exercise in understanding the state of the Church through the crisis. I think it was you who suggested that we need a study of ecclesiology. Well that's what this is - ecclesiology. The Church always has some Successors of the Apostles; the traditional bishops are not Successors of the Apostles; therefore we must identify the Successors of the Apostles elsewhere.

James, that's right. I'm speaking only of jurisdiction, the power of the keys, not the power of orders.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:08 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:
James, that's right. I'm speaking only of jurisdiction, the power of the keys, not the power of orders.

OK. Then correct me if I am wrong, but I think I have detected a bit of confusion here: Vince has not stated that the Bishops he is talking about are all valid Bishops. I.e., isn't he including in this discussion ALL "bishops" whether "real" or fake?

Shouldn't both of you make a clear distinction between them? I.e., exactly who you are talking about?

Surely, the anti-popes can appoint all manner of fake bishops to various sees, and they have done so. How many "real" bishops have any anti-popes appointed to real sees, and how many are still alive?

I don't see that this entire discussion has any present value whatever.

Yes, I suppose it could be possible for an anti-pope to appoint a valid bishop to a see, and the Church could supply the necessary jurisdiction, but I'll also bet that neither one of you can point to such a bishop who is alive today.

Castro Mayer died 22 years ago.

If we assume that The Fat Man (Roncalli) was a true pope (I don't) and he appointed bishops during his "pontificate", Canonically speaking, a man would have to have been a minimum of 30 years old to be consecrated a Bishop during that time. Roncalli died in 1963: that would make the youngest of his "Bishops" at least 80 years old today. All of those, then, are past the "mandatory retirement age" and every one of those I know of are Novus Ordo. What good are/were they?

As you know, my opinion is that Roncalli was an anti-pope. To me this means that the only valid bishops would have been those appointed by Pius XII. The youngest of those Bishops would be 85 today. Most would be much older, if they still lived.

There are, of course, some Pius XII bishops still alive: all that I know of are over 90. Archbishop Phillip Hannon was one of those. He died, well over 90 years of age, a few years ago.

As far as I am concerned, our only real hope for a continuation of the apostolic line is through those bishops who were sent by Pius XI and Pius XII into Eastern Europe and into China, who remained underground, and who, having been given such authority by Pius XI and Pius XII, consecrated valid bishops who are both still alive, much younger, and still underground.

This discussion of supplied jurisdiction by any of the cursed anti-popes is an interesting exercise in the application of it, but IMHO, has no bearing on reality.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:38 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:
I.e., isn't he including in this discussion ALL "bishops" whether "real" or fake?


Well, I think the question is, which classes of bishops are real, and which fake?

Ken Gordon wrote:
Yes, I suppose it could be possible for an anti-pope to appoint a valid bishop to a see, and the Church could supply the necessary jurisdiction,

A layman can receive and maintain ordinary jurisdiction. Therefore the probable invalidity of New Church episcopal orders doesn't affect the question as to whether some of these appointments might have been valid.

Now, just to clarify, the supply of jurisdiction is only required for the appointment to the office. The new bishop would have ordinary jurisdiction, and therefore would not require jurisdiction to be supplied. The reason for this is that ordinary jurisdiction is attached to the office. Therefore whoever has the office has ordinary jurisdiction.

Ken Gordon wrote:
but I'll also bet that neither one of you can point to such a bishop who is alive today.


That's a pretty funny comment from somebody with your particular view, Ken! :)

Ken Gordon wrote:
Castro Mayer died 22 years ago.


Principles are principles, Ken. If they apply, they apply.

Ken Gordon wrote:
As far as I am concerned, our only real hope for a continuation of the apostolic line is through those bishops who were sent by Pius XI and Pius XII into Eastern Europe and into China, who remained underground, and who, having been given such authority by Pius XI and Pius XII, consecrated valid bishops who are both still alive, much younger, and still underground.


Well you certainly can't point to one of those! Ken, the Eastern rites have valid orders, so all we need is to identify a Catholic, and a basis upon which his appointment to the office is valid.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:24 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:
Ken Gordon wrote:
I.e., isn't he including in this discussion ALL "bishops" whether "real" or fake?

Well, I think the question is, which classes of bishops are real, and which fake?

IMHO, with support from such as John Daly, any "bishop" "ordained" after the promulgation of Montini's invalid rite in 1969 is immediately suspect. Each such "bishop" would have to be investigated carefully on a case-by-case basis. Any "bishop" "ordained" by such "bishops" would be absolutely "fake".

John Lane wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
Yes, I suppose it could be possible for an anti-pope to appoint a valid bishop to a see, and the Church could supply the necessary jurisdiction,

A layman can receive and maintain ordinary jurisdiction. Therefore the probable invalidity of New Church episcopal orders doesn't affect the question as to whether some of these appointments might have been valid.

Now, just to clarify, the supply of jurisdiction is only required for the appointment to the office. The new bishop would have ordinary jurisdiction, and therefore would not require jurisdiction to be supplied. The reason for this is that ordinary jurisdiction is attached to the office. Therefore whoever has the office has ordinary jurisdiction.

Yes. I understand, and have understood that: I have no argument against that.

John Lane wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
but I'll also bet that neither one of you can point to such a bishop who is alive today.

That's a pretty funny comment from somebody with your particular view, Ken! :)

I see you have gotten my point, John. Congrats. :lol:

John Lane wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
Castro Mayer died 22 years ago.

Principles are principles, Ken. If they apply, they apply.

Of course...

John Lane wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
As far as I am concerned, our only real hope for a continuation of the apostolic line is through those bishops who were sent by Pius XI and Pius XII into Eastern Europe and into China, who remained underground, and who, having been given such authority by Pius XI and Pius XII, consecrated valid bishops who are both still alive, much younger, and still underground.

Well you certainly can't point to one of those! Ken, the Eastern rites have valid orders, so all we need is to identify a Catholic, and a basis upon which his appointment to the office is valid.

...all of whom I know of are very aged....

We need much younger men, with far more courage than those presently alive...and the permission of God to finally do something concrete about the present crisis.

Until and unless God decides that it is time, all we can do is hold the line and prepare.

One thing that has bothered me for a long time: should the crisis finally be brought to an end, how many of the so-called "traditional clergy" would accept a true hierarchy which didn't fit, exactly, with their own ideas of where it should come from? How many of these people would be able to put down their independence and operate for the good of the Church? Considering the almost constant infighting that they indulge in, I would bet that darned few would do so. If the True Hierarchy should emerge from a totally unexpected source, I would guess that less than 10% of the "traditional clergy" would accept it...and even fewer of the traditional bishops.

In the entire history of the Church, very few true Bishops were worthy of their offices: all those that I know of were terrified by the responsibility and tried every way they could to avoid it. And by my reading, all those Bishops who sought the office proved themselves to be unworthy of that office. I don't hold many of today's traditional bishops, i.e. those who are not successors of the Apostles, in particularly high regard.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:31 pm
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 !

Ken posted :

Quote:
One thing that has bothered me for a long time: should the crisis finally be brought to an end, how many of the so-called "traditional clergy" would accept a true hierarchy which didn't fit, exactly, with their own ideas of where it should come from? How many of these people would be able to put down their independence and operate for the good of the Church?


Ken- the same holds for the laity as well... we have a kinda novelty in its own since V2... the" lay expert" with a Densinger.

The novus ordo even has a degree for the lay expert, if memory serves, it is tittled something like- Parish Administration or Pastoral Theology....but that is not to be confused with the well meaning traditional catholic lay expert.

Me thinks, unless there is a miraculous event confirming God has given us a Pope, I doubt it will be accepted " peacefully" by the vast majority of traditional catholics, not to mention complete rejection by the sede plentists of today.
One thing to ponder- will the lay expert in us all, have the humilty to submit to rightfull Church authority?

In Xto,
Vincent


Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:47 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., "Thesis of Cassiciacu
Vincent,

I agree, and I do not see this ending without a significant miracle or many miracles. Well reasoned arguments can be powerful, but the modern mind in my view is weak compared to the trained minds of the past.

One thing I have pondered for a long time, for what it worth, is that we already have a promised miracle from Our Lady which will be the conversion of Russia. Our Lady said that when the Pope in union with the bishops consecrates Russia, it will be converted.

I believe that if in some way the remaining members of the hierarchy and Roman clergy actually somehow do agree to a council and elect a pope, (a miracle in itself), then in my opinion the first act of the Pope, and the bishops of the world who are all assembled there anyway for the council, should publicly consecrate Russia right then and there.

This public act should be videotaped and spread throughout the world by every means possible, internet, church bulletins, word of mouth, etc. In my opinion no reasonable Catholic could dispute the new Pope's claim when God has given us such profound certitude of his claim by seeing before our eyes the conversion of Russia to the Catholic Faith. Only the Pope and the bishops in union with him can bring about this conversion of Russia through this consecration.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:35 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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.