Author Topic: Totalism vs. The Cassiciacuм Thesis (Read 1128 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** November 23, 2022, 11:12:17 AM »

Totalism vs. The Cassiciacuм Thesis (fatherlehtoranta.com)

Totalism vs. The Cassiciacuм Thesis

Preamble

At the end of October 2022, I was invited to be interviewed at the program named The Catholic Family Podcast, hosted by Mr. Kevin Davis. Mr. Davis had previously in March invited Bishop Donald Sanborn to speak about the Cassiciacuм Thesis, aka. the Thesis of Bishop Guérard des Lauriers. Bishop Sanborn, who is the Rector of the Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Reading, Pennsylvania, is one of the most well-known proponent of the Thesis, together with Father Francesco Ricossa, the head of the Institute of the Mother of Good Counsel (IMBC) in Turin, Italy.

Since I myself had, ever since my ordination in 2011, worked closely with Bishop Daniel Dolan and Fr. Anthony Cekada, both of whom rejected the Thesis, and had also learned from them about some of the problems concerning it, I accepted the invitation of Mr. Davis to give a response to Bishop Sanborn’s interview. These objections, and the view which Fr. Cekada held, is generally called Totalism, meaning the total vacancy of the Holy See, and total rejection of the false church of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Mr. Davis and I had originally planned to do the interview in May, but because of Bishop Dolan’s untimely death in April, and the move of Most Holy Trinity Seminary from Florida to Pennsylvania, my interview was postponed to October. In this article I will give a comparison between the Thesis and Totalism, and present my objections to it in a more thorough form than I could do in the hour-long interview.

I. Is Thesis Sedevacantism?

Sedevacantism comes from the Latin words sede vacante, the see being vacant. The reason why the Church can be without a Pope for a long time, even for decades, is that the Pope is what is called the visible head of the Church,*1 while Christ is called the invisible Head.*2 So the Church is never a headless or imperfect Body, but always has Christ as her Head, even if she is occasionally devoid of her visible head, the Pope.

When is the Church, then, in the state of sede vacante? According to Fr. Umberto Benigni, professor of Church history and founder of the Sodalitium Pianum, papal sede vacante is a time “between the death of the pope and the election of his successor.”*3 This is the position of the Totalists, who maintain that the Holy See has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, because Angelo Roncalli was a modernist, was outside of the Catholic Church, and was thus in no way capable to receive the papacy, and also those who were elected to succeed him did not meet the necessary conditions for being a true or legitimate Pope.*4

The Thesis argument, on the other hand, is that the election of 2013, which chose Jorge Mario Bergoglio, aka. “Pope Francis”, was a true papal election, just like the election of 1903, which elected St. Pius X, was a true papal election. According to Father Damien Dutertre, one of the proponents of the Thesis, Bergoglio and his predecessors (and successors) “can validly elect and be elected in the Church” and that they are non-popes only because “they did not properly accept their election to the papacy.”*5 From this it follows, that our situation, in these times of Bergoglio, “is therefore not one of pure vacancy of the Roman See.”*6 Fr. Ricossa says it even more clearly: “The See is occupied by him, and cannot be occupied by someone else for as long as the election has not been declared null by the Church.”*7

Because of this, we Totalists do not see the supporters of the Thesis as real and true Sedevacantists. If there is a legitimate claimant who sits on the throne of St. Peter, and his election was valid, then we are not in the state of sede vacante as it was defined by Fr. Benigni.

II. Where is the Hierarchy Today?

The big thing which the Thesis supporters say makes it superior against Totalism is that the Thesis saves the continuation of apostolic hierarchy. They say that in the Totalist system this is gone.

First let us look at what apostolicity means. The definition is given by Fr. Jean-Vincent Bainvel (1858-1937), the dean of the faculty of theology of the Catholic Institute of Paris from 1913 to 1925:

It is, in fact, an obvious thing: the Church being a hierarchical social body, one must belong to this social body in order to share in the authority of its hierarchy. Without apostolic succession, the hierarchy is no longer that which Christ instituted: it is a human work; and even if the sacraments remained there, the authority would not be there; for the power of order does not of itself carry the power of jurisdiction: the latter is attached to the mission, to the legitimate succession. It is not enough to claim Christ, nor even to have the sacraments. We are his people, we are of his church (I speak externally) when we obey the pastors established by him, sent by him. It is therefore for a Church a capital question that of legitimate succession.*8

So from the very start, Bergoglio is disqualified as having anything to do with the continuation of hierarchy, because he is a heretic and an apostate, which, as we will see later, automatically excludes him from the Church membership. In other words, he doesn’t even have the bare minimum what it takes to be a legitimate possessor of continuation of hierarchy in the Church of Christ. The altar boys who serve my daily school Mass are more successors of Apostles than Bergoglio, for at least the altar boys are Catholics, while Bergoglio is not. As the Bishop, who is ordaining a Subdeacon, says in his instruction to the ordinand: “All that is not of faith is sin, and schism, and outside the unity of the Church.”*9

As we also see from the definition, anyone who claims to be a Catholic Bishop, must possess two things: 1) valid orders, and 2) the legality, or power of jurisdiction.

Fr. Cekada has amply presented his arguments that Bergoglio and his church do not possess valid orders.*10 Therefore, Bergoglio and his bishops are disqualified of having anything to do with the apostolicity of the Catholic Church already on two counts: 1) they are not Catholics, and 2) they do not possess valid orders.

Do Sedevacantist Bishops, who have the Catholic faith and valid orders, have jurisdiction, then? According to the Thesis, no. Fr. Nicolas Despósito, one of the professors of Most Holy Trinity Seminary, has written:

Sedevacantist bishops do not enjoy any title of jurisdiction. The supplied sacramental jurisdiction in the internal forum exercised per modum actus in Confession, must not be confused with the ordinary jurisdiction to govern the Church, which belongs to the external forum, is habitual and can only be granted by a Pope. Since sedevacantist bishops are not part of the material-legal hierarchy of the Church which is the basis for juridical status, and have no title (either true, colored or presumed) to jurisdiction to any territory, they do not have the right to represent the whole Church in a General Council. The only power that sedevacantist bishops have is the power of orders, which allows them to validly ordain priests and administer confirmation.*11

The Totalist position, on the other hand is, that without legality, any Bishop, Sedevacantist or otherwise, cannot be a true successor of Apostles. He would, in that case, not be a true Bishop, but a thief, as Our Lord says: “He that entereth not by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbeth up another way, he is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth by the door, is the Pastor of the sheep.”*12

But as the 1917 Code of Canon Law (CCL) defines, besides ordinary jurisdiction, which is had by the Pope and the diocesan Bishops, there is what is called delegated jurisdiction (which is not the same as supplied jurisdiction):

Ordinary power of jurisdiction is that which is attached to an office by law; delegated [power is that which] is committed to a person.*13

In the times when the Church has Popes, their legitimacy was proved with the mandatum, which was a papal docuмent granting permission for the consecration of a Bishop who will serve as Bishop in any capacity, such auxiliary or titular Bishop. To the diocesan Bishops was granted the canonical appointment, which designated the Bishop as an ordinary or residential Bishop.*14 Since the mission of the Church to save souls is divine law, and the method how this mission is delegated throughout the times and places is merely a human law, the Traditional Catholic Bishops are not bound to “seek permission” from any modernist institution, or from any “material-legal hierarchy”. Instead, since Christ still remains the invisible Head of His Church, He, in the times when visible head is not had, grants legitimacy and obligation to each Bishop to both validly and legally “to judge, to interpret, to consecrate, to ordain, to offer sacrifice, to baptize and to confirm” as it is said in the rite of Episcopal Consecration. As Fr. Cekada put it: “This divine law always endures, together with the jurisdiction from Christ necessary to fulfill it.”15

I personally don’t know why any Traditional Catholic would have any problem with this. There is no Pope. There are no Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. Is one to presume that a human ecclesiastical law trumps the divine mission of Christ to do what Traditional priests and Bishops have now done for decades, namely establish churches and missions, where they give Sacraments and teaching to the faithful? So the answer to the question, “where is the hierarchy,” is, that it is in the Traditional Catholic Bishops, who have been validly and legally consecrated.

But even if someone would have a problem with this, that would not somehow make Thesis true by default. Because according to this Thesis, the hierarchy of Bergoglio, as Fr. Despósito puts it, “enjoys a legal status which can only be removed by a legal process.”*16 But this leads to the conundrum which is far worse than any possible problem which might be had with the position of the Traditional Bishops being the true hierarchy. If only the hierarchy of Bergoglio is legal, then the only logical conclusion is that the Sedevacantist priests and Bishops are illegal. There is no way the Thesis can get around this. If Bergoglio has power to designate where the legal succession continues, he has also to have the power to designate where it does not continue. And his church has done so by declaring as illegal those Traditionalist clerics who derive their orders from Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc:

Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination, and as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously, and the above-mentioned penal sanctions remain in force until repentance.*17

Of course no Thesis supporter would say that their orders or mission are illegal. But that is the only logical conclusion if one accepts the “material-legal hierarchy” theory. If this system can’t be applied logically, it shouldn’t be applied at all.

III. Where is the Catholic Church?

As we could already see from above, the Thesis supporters see the hierarchy of Bergoglio as legal. And they also argue, that Bergoglio’s church “is not a separate Church, but rather describes the phenomenon of modernist prelates attempting to impose on the Catholic Church their poisonous religion.”*18

Fr. Despósito puts it like this:

The term “official Church” should be understood here to mean the material hierarchy of the Catholic Church, which remains the same before and after Vatican II. It would be theologically erroneous – even heretical – to designate the present day hierarchy as the Catholic Church formally. Technically, Vatican II was the beginning of a new religion, but not of a new Church.*19

Here we see how the Thesis attempts to build its own alternative reality. Little bit like in nominalism, an idea “describes” some concept which doesn’t necessarily coincide with reality at all. Things are not how they look like. It also resembles Kantianism, where the “phenomenon” as our mind’s idea is really extinct from the thing itself, which our mind cannot grasp.*20

So in this made-up Thesis world, it might appear that this church organization of Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not the Catholic Church, but, against all sense-information, the true Church of Christ is still intact in it.*21

This is a concept which the Totalists reject completely. We say that the election of John XXIII in 1958 was the beginning of both new religion and a new church. Completely independently of anyone’s thoughts, the church organization of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, which is clearly a visible entity, either is the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e. the Catholic Church, or it is not. There is no third option. That’s why the opponents of the Thesis are called Totalists, because we totally reject the idea that this heretical sect of Bergoglio has anything to do with the true Church of Christ, either legally or in reality. Patrick Henry Omlor labelled this sect as the “Robber Church” and wrote:

For just how much “change” could the Catholic Church possibly undergo and still be the Church? Quite apparent for all to see are the frenzied efforts of the new robbers to destroy all ties and links with the past, to eradicate from memory all vestiges of the ancient, true, traditional Church. To think of the new Robber Church as the very same Catholic Church that it is so deliberately and painstakingly trying to wipe out of memory? Absurdity of absurdities!*22

And Mr. Omlor wrote these words in 1971! To see Vatican II Church as the same thing as the Catholic Church? Absurdity of absurdities. Unless one shares the mindset of one of our former presidents, who had difficulties to grasp the meaning of the verb “is”, everyone must admit that the church organization of Jorge Mario Bergoglio either is the true Church or it is not. After his supposed excommunication from the Church in 1983, Bishop Moisés Carmona (1912-1991), one of the Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Thuc, wrote to the Archbishop of Chihuahua Adalbert Almeida in reply:

From what Church, Msgr. Almeida – from that of always – or from the new one? You apostates, eminent representatives of the Vatican II Church, do you have power to excommunicate those who remain in the Church of always?... It is a glory for us to be excommunicated for our loyalty to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church; we desire that more excommunication come and to have the good fortune to die excommunicated by that Church, which is not the Church of Christ assisted by the Holy Ghost.*23

And truly, the position of Bishop Carmona, the Totalist and Sedevacantist position, is the only one which is completely in accord with Scripture and Tradition. St. Paul wrote to the Ephesians:

Let women be subject to their husbands, as to Our Lord: because the man is the head of the woman, as Christ is the Head of the Church, Himself, the Saviour of His Body. But as the Church is subject to Christ, so also the women to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself for it: that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word: that He might present to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it may be holy and unspotted.*24

Pope Boniface VIII opened his famous bull Unam Sanctam (1302) with these words:

With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: “One is my dove, my perfect one. One she is of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her” [Cant. 6:8].*25

We Totalists declare, with Bishop Carmona and Mr. Omlor, that this Vatican II “Church” has nothing whatsoever to do with the true Church of Christ. We cannot identify the church organization of Jorge Bergoglio as the Church without “spot or wrinkle” which is “holy and unspotted” and the “perfect one.”

But if anyone still has doubts about if the church organization of Bergoglio is the same thing as the Catholic Church, he doesn’t need to take the word of the Totalists for it. All he needs to do is to take his Baltimore Catechism, look the four marks of the Church and see if he finds them in Bergoglio’s church. Those four marks are:

Why is the Catholic Church one?

The Catholic Church is one because all its members, according to the will of Christ, profess the same faith, have the same sacrifice and sacraments, and are united under one and the same visible head, the Pope.

Why is the Catholic Church holy?

The Catholic Church is holy because it was founded by Jesus Christ, who is all-holy, and because it teaches, according to the will of Christ, holy doctrines, and provides the means of leading a holy life, thereby giving holy members to every age.

Why is the Catholic Church catholic or universal?

The Catholic Church is catholic or universal because, destined to last for all time, it never fails to fulfill the divine commandment to teach all nations all the truths revealed by God.

Why is the Catholic Church apostolic?

The Catholic Church is apostolic because it was founded by Christ on the apostles and, according to His divine will, has always been governed by their lawful successors.*26

Obviously the question, if the church organization of Bergoglio is the true Church of Christ or not, is something which no Catholic can remain in doubt. But the true Church always has the answers, and offers the means for her members to solve any doubts which pertain to faith or morals. And for many it might be, that the message of the Totalists, that the church of Bergoglio is a heretic sect, is “a hard saying.”*27 But, as Sherlock Holmes once said: “Any truth is better than indefinite doubt.”*28

IV. Is Bergoglio Eligible to be Elected Pope?

Another major difference between Thesis and Totalism is the question about if Bergoglio has been elected to receive the papacy. Or, as Fr. Dutertre puts it:

Where the Thesis disagrees with totalism is in the explanation of how these claimants to the papacy were not true popes.*29

Here is another major difficulty with the Thesis universe, because a normal human mind does not work this way. It would be like if I would ask one of my students to explain in what manner I am not the President of the United States. An average student would probably find this question very confusing, because a normal mind grasps that a person either is the President or he is not.

Nevertheless, in his interview with the Catholic Family Podcast, Bishop Sanborn said that yes, a Pope who falls into heresy would ipso facto [by the very fact] fall away also from the Church membership. But in order that this falling away from the Church membership have a legal effect, the culprit must be declared guilty by the Church. He gives a long list of theologians, e.g. Cajetan, Billuart, St. Robert Bellarmine, who all say the same as the Thesis, i.e. that in order that Bergoglio not being legally the Pope-elect, he must be declared so by the Church, otherwise he retains designation to the papacy, in a same way as the President-elect of the United States. Some legal body must take the election away, and if it’s not taken away, and Bergoglio would convert, he’d become Pope.*30

But this view is entirely false. As Fr. Cekada has pointed out, it is divine law that a person who does not hold the Catholic faith is incapable of being validly elected to receive the papacy.*31 Pope Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis (1943):

Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith, and have not, to their misfortune, separated themselves from the structure of the Body, or for very serious sins have not been excluded by lawful authority. - - Nor must one think that the Body of the Church - - is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. - - For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.*32

We see, therefore, that Pius XII, in no unclear words, teaches that separation from the Catholic Church can happen either by excommunication from the part of the Church or by one separating himself from her by committing a sin of schism, heresy, or apostasy.

Furthermore, just like the electoral college has the power to elect the President, nevertheless neither the papal or presidential electors possess the power to elect whoever they want to. The electoral college of the United States has strict restrictions, dictated in the Constitution, who is eligible to be elected President. And those constitutional qualifications are, that the President-elect must:

Be a natural-born citizen,
Be at least 35 years old; and
Have resided in the United States for at least 14 years.*33

Ilhan Omar, Democratic congresswoman from Minnesota, was born is Somalia in 1982, and she is a naturalized citizen of the United States. She is therefore constitutionally ineligible to be elected as President. Even if she would run, would win all 50 states, and be unanimously elected by the Electoral College, no legal election can give her something which she is unable to receive, namely the presidency of the United States.

Similarly, it is false what Fr. Duterte claims, that “undeclared heretics can validly elect and be elected in the Church.”*34 As Father Filippo Maroto, a consultant of the Holy Office, who worked in the preparation of the 1917 Code points out, the validity of papal election depends only upon the divine law; and those impediments given by divine law render the election of a Roman Pontiff invalid. And the qualifications for the elect are that he be:

with the use of his reason
of the male sex
a member of the Church, for which reason infidels, heretics and schismatics cannot be validly elected.*35

But regarding if Bergoglio is an actual Pope-elect or not, it is completely irrelevant what Bishop Sanborn says, what Fr. Dutertre says, or what Fr. Cekada says, or what I say. In the real world, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who was baptized on 25 December 1936, in the Basilica of Mary Help of Christians and St. Charles Borromeo in Buenos Aires, either

is a member of the Catholic Church; or
is not a member of the Catholic Church.

And that’s it. Those are the only two options there is. And if he is the member of the Church, he is capable, not only to be elected to receive the papacy, but actually to receive the papacy.*36

But if one still holds the Thesis as true, and that a public apostate can be validly elected to receive the papacy, one can just as well claim that Ilhan Omar can be elected to receive the papacy. If the pope-elect can be dispensed from having the Catholic faith and the Church membership, he can just as well be excused from being baptized, or of being the male sex, too. This is a logical conclusion, if one holds that a human law can trump the divine law.

V. Where we get the Pope, then?

In the question how might the Church get a true Pope again, three theories to solve the problem have been suggested:

Direct divine intervention
An imperfect General Council
The Thesis, i.e. conversion of Bergoglio to the true Faith.*37

We Totalists are often criticized of not taking the problem of Apostolic succession seriously and just saying that “God will solve the crisis.” I never understood why is it such a terrible sin to put your hope and trust to God. Bishop Dolan always saw this crisis as a punishment from God for which Catholics need to do reparation, rather than some big problem which man needs to solve. The impatience of getting this “problem” solved reminds me of the Apostles’ question to Jesus: “Lord, whether at this time wilt Thou restore the kingdom of Israel?” And He responded: “It is not for you to know times or moments, which the Father hath put in His own power.”*38

The private revelation most quoted for the restoration of the papacy was received by Venerable Elisabetta Canori Mora (1774-1825), who was a professed member from the Third Order of Trinitarians. She once received a vision where St. Peter descended from heaven, dressed in pontifical vestments surrounded by angels, and protected the faithful from the acts of violence. To celebrate the victory over the persecutors and demons, the faithful were led to the feet of St. Peter to make homage to him. St. Peter himself chose new pope who would restore to reorganize the Church and re-establish the religious orders, and this new pope was recognized in every country of the world as the new Vicar of Christ.*39

So in the divine intervention, St. Peter simply chooses and points out who the new Pope is. And he can very well be someone who already is both validly and legally consecrated Bishop, and there is no need to establish any “new” hierarchy.

The idea of an Imperfect General Council was developed by Cardinal Thomas Cajetan (1469-1534), who says that should the College of Cardinals become extinct, the right to elect a Pope would devolve to the clergy of Rome, and then to the universal Church.*40 I personally do not sup-port this solution, because the whole concept of an “imperfect General Council is a contradiction of terms; “General Council” by its very definition is “perfect” and in any case, calling together a General Council demands that it is done by the Pope, which is bit of a problem in our days.

But even this idea is better than the Thesis solution, because at least that places the solution to the crisis in the Church in the hands of Catholics, while the Thesis places it in the hands of Bergoglio and his false Bishops, who are heretics and apostates. If we Totalists are blamed or criticized of putting our hope and trust in God, instead of men,*41 we gladly plead guilty as charged.

Conclusion

Bp. Guérard des Lauriers composed his Thesis in the 1970s, when Paul VI was still the papal pretender. Probably in his times, when the parishes and the Vatican itself were still free from idolatry and open acceptance of immorality, the Thesis was still an acceptable explanation to the crisis in the Church. And maybe in the conclaves of 1978, when there were still few valid Cardinals left, and Cardinal Giuseppe Siri was a strong candidate to be elected to receive the papacy, the Novus Ordo structure could have been saved. But in our days, the church organization of Jorge Mario Bergoglio doesn’t even vaguely resemble the Catholic Church anymore. And that’s why the Thesis is hopelessly outdated in our days. If Bergoglio’s church is the Catholic Church, then the true Church could designate a false pope. And if it is not the true Church, then a false Church could designate a true Pope.

Sources

Bainvel, Jean-Vincent

1909 Apostolicité – Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique. Tome I. Deuxième partie. Paris: Letouzey et Ané.

BC

2018 The New Confraternity Edition Revised Baltimore Catechism No. 3. Elkhorn, WI: St. Jerome Library.

Benigni, Umberto

1913 Camerlengo. – The Catholic Encyclopedia. Volume III. New York, NY: The Encyclopedia Press.

Biskupek, Aloysius

1935 Ordinations. A Translation and Explanation of the Rite of Ordination. Techny, IL: Mission Press, S.V.D.

Cekada, Anthony

2021a Don’t Get Me Started! Vol. I. Road to Sedevacantism. West Chester, OH: St. Gertrude the Great Church.

2021b Don’t Get Me Started! Vol. II. The Controversialist. West Chester, OH: St. Gertrude the Great Church.

2021c Don’t Get Me Started! Vol. III. Whatever. West Chester, OH: St. Gertrude the Great Church.

CCL

2001 The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law. Edward N. Peters (ed.) San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press.

Despósito, Nicolás E.

2019 The Cassiciacuм Thesis. A Brief Exposition.

DS

1963 Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum. Ed. 32. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder.

Dutertre, Damien

2022a On the Lack of Intention to Accept the Papacy.

2022b On the Canonical Crime of Heresy in Relation to the Thesis.

DZ

2009 The Sources of Catholic Dogma. Boonville, NY: Preserving Christian Publications.

Herbert, Mary Elizabeth (ed.)

1878 Life Of The Venerable Elizabeth Canori Mora. London: R. Washbourne.

Iribarren, Isabel

2005 Durandus of Saint-Pourçain. A Dominican Theologian in the Shadow of Aquinas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Maroto, Philippo

1919 Institutiones Iuris Canonici ad Normam Novi Codicis. Tomus II. Madrid: Editorial del Corazon de Maria.

Omlor, Patrick Henry

1998 The Robber Church. Stouffville, Canada: Studio Graziano.

Parente, Pietro et al.

1952 Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology. Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company.

Ricossa, Francesco

2016 Pope, Papacy and the Vacant See.

Short Explanation of the Thesis

2021 Short Explanation Why We Reject the Thesis of Guerard des Lauriers.

Endnotes

*1 DZ 1823.

*2 BC 144.

*3 Benigni 1913, 217

*4 Cfr. Declaration of Abp. Thuc et al. May 26, 1983.

*5 Dutertre 2022a, 2.

*6 Dutertre 2022a, 8.

*7 Ricossa 2016, 18.

*8 Bainvel 1909, 1625

*9 Omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est, schismaticuм est, et extra unitatem Ecclesiæ est. Biskupek 1935, 50.

*10 “Absolutely Null and Utterly Void” (2006). Cekada 2021b, 278-325. “Still Null and Still Void” (2007) Cekada 2021b, 356-381.

*11 Despósito 2019, 8. Emphasis in the original

*12 John 10:1-2.

*13 CCL 197 §1.

*14 Cekada 2021b, 63-64.

*15 “Traditional Priests, Legitimate Sacraments” (2003). Cekada 2021b, 129-139.

*16 Despósito 2019, 6.

*17 L’Osservatore Romano, English Edition, 18 April 1983, p. 12.

*18 Dutertre 2022b, 38.

*19 Despósito 2019, 5.

*20 Parente 1952, 160, 200.

*21 The Dominicans, in the tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas, fiercely attacked against nominalism, whose one main proponent was Durandus of Saint-Pourçain. Durandus (d. 1334), whose name means “hardened” or “enduring”, was the theological advisor of Pope John XXII at Avignon, and later Bishop of the diocese of Meaux in 1326-1334. He was constantly in trouble with his order because of his opposition to the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas on several theological and philosophical questions. There is a persistent rumor that the Dominicans wrote as an epitaph on Durandus’ grave at Meaux these verses:

Durus Durandus jacet hic sub marmore duro.

An sit salvandus, ego nescio nec quoque curo.

Which can be translated:

“Stubborn Durandus here lies under the hard marble.

Whether he is saved, I do not know, neither do I care.”

Since the burial place of Durandus has not been preserved, we can neither confirm or deny this rumor. Iribarren 2005, 9.

*22 Omlor 1998, 164.

*23 Letter to the Abp. of Chihuahua, Adalbert Almeida, May, 1985.

*24 Eph. 5:22-27

*25 DZ 468.

*26 BC, qq. 156-159.

*27 Cfr. John 6:60.

*28 Arthur Conan Doyle: The Adventure of the Yellow Face (1893).

*29 Dutertre 2022a, 1. Emphasis in the original.

*30 https://mhtseminary.libsyn.com/webpage/interview-catholic-family-podcast-interviews-bp-sanborn

*31 “Bergoglio’s Got Nothing to Lose” (2014) Cekada 2021c, 244-255

*32 DS 3802-3803.

*33 Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

*34 Dutertre 2022a, 2.

*35 Maroto 1919, 171-172, #784; Cekada 2021c, 248

*36 Short Explanation of the Thesis.

*37 Cekada 2021a, 383.

*38 Acts 1:6-7.

*39 Herbert 1878, 137-139.

*40 Cekada 2021a, 383.

*41 Cfr. Ps. 145:2-3.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #1 on:** November 23, 2022, 11:24:47 AM »

We have to remember that the Catholic Church is "conclavist". It is dogma that the Church can always provide herself a pope. Which means right now, we can provide ourselves a pope.

There are many wrong and invalid ways to go about it. But there is a right way. There has to be (according to Catholic dogma).

I have noticed a slight shift with the pure SV bishops, where they now claim to be licit and have a mission. It would be up to them to elect a pope.

I do not think it will happen, and God will probably intervene. But I don't think "conclavist" is a dirty word.

If the home aloners could wake up to the fact that we have a valid and licit hierarchy and it is the clergy who profess the Catholic faith, perhaps they could make the salvation of their souls a bit easier.

Cornelius · « **Reply #2 on:** November 23, 2022, 01:24:00 PM »

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #3 on:** November 23, 2022, 01:35:02 PM »

Quote from: Cornelius on November 23, 2022, 01:24:00 PM

.

I gottcha buddy. But it is true. It is almost as if we are apologizing for accepting the Catholic hierarchy. "But I'm not a conclavist". As if it is unCatholic, some different religion that puts you outside the Church.

Yeti · « **Reply #4 on:** November 23, 2022, 02:02:02 PM »

This is a very interesting article and reflects a lot of my own thoughts on these questions. I especially like his insistence on the idea that the conciliar church is not -- and cannot be -- the Catholic Church, since it teaches heresy in its official capacity. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that this fact is a refutation of the Thesis, as he argues. If this institution is not the Catholic Church, since it lacks the four marks of the Church, then it follows that it cannot validly elect the pope of the Catholic Church either.

2Vermont · « **Reply #5 on:** November 23, 2022, 02:14:36 PM »

In a recent newsletter, Bishop Pivarunas has explicitly stated that the traditional bishops with valid orders and profess the Catholic Faith whole and entire are the successors to the apostles.

I even sensed something along the lines in a recent EC from Bishop Williamson...that the conciliar hierarchy is not the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. That certainly implies that the traditional Catholic bishops are.

But there are way too many trads waiting for the Conciliar Sect to give us a Catholic pope.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #6 on:** November 23, 2022, 02:21:43 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on November 23, 2022, 02:14:36 PM

In a recent newsletter, Bishop Pivarunas has explicitly stated that the traditional bishops with valid orders and profess the Catholic Faith whole and entire are the successors to the apostles.

I even sensed something along the lines in a recent EC from Bishop Williamson...that the conciliar hierarchy is not the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. That certainly implies that the traditional Catholic bishops are.

Yes, they certainly are successors. Licit successors. Formally Apostolic. That is what people have had problems accepting until recently. In a sense this is so obvious. But some want to make it complicated. I'm sure their goal is not to make things unnecessarily complicated, but that is what they do in my opinion. The devil loves confusion, not simplicity.

Yeti · « **Reply #7 on:** November 23, 2022, 02:22:15 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on November 23, 2022, 02:14:36 PM

But there are way too many trads waiting for the Conciliar Sect to give us a Catholic pope.

.

Yes. The Guerardians object when Totalists say the solution to the present crisis will be something miraculous. And yet they themselves say the solution to the crisis can only be the conversion of Bergoglio or one of his successors, which would be one of the greatest miracles of all time.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #8 on:** November 23, 2022, 02:24:08 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on November 23, 2022, 02:22:15 PM

.

Yes. The Guerardians object when Totalists say the solution to the present crisis will be something miraculous. And yet they themselves say the solution to the crisis can only be the conversion of Bergoglio or one of his successors, which would be one of the greatest miracles of all time.

2Vermont, and you, both have an excellent way with words. Truly puts it in perspective.

2Vermont · « **Reply #9 on:** November 23, 2022, 02:26:02 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on November 23, 2022, 02:22:15 PM

.

Yes. The Guerardians object when Totalists say the solution to the present crisis will be something miraculous. And yet they themselves say the solution to the crisis can only be the conversion of Bergoglio or one of his successors, which would be one of the greatest miracles of all time.

Or all trad bishops uniting? LOL

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #10 on:** November 23, 2022, 02:28:05 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on November 23, 2022, 02:26:02 PM

Or all trad bishops uniting? LOL

That would be a dream. When I hear it said out loud, it sounds like we have to wait for a miracle.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #11 on:** November 25, 2022, 05:04:51 AM »

[Delete]

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #12 on:** November 25, 2022, 05:07:52 AM »

[Delete]

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #13 on:** November 25, 2022, 05:14:25 AM »

Here is a book that should be of interest for those looking to get to the bottom of the issue:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/on.com/Sed/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=on.com/Sed&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20 />
And here is the forward to it that I wrote:

Does the Catholic Church really have a pope today? The bizarre antics of Pope (?) Francis have raised doubts about that in the minds of many. Consider that in a recent encyclical he teaches that it is morally licit for cohabitating couples and adulterers to receive the Eucharist while being guilty of those sins. Could someone so patently non-Catholic really be nevertheless a pope? And what about when he made it clear that it is not up to him to judge ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, thus admitting his non-papal status? What would it mean to say that he isn’t a pope, and how does that square theologically?

I first encountered Griff and his theory on when the Pope lost his office back around 2004. Some of the questions about Francis today were being raised by me back in the early 2000’s about John Paul II. I first started communicating with Griff after I started writing for Daily Catholic. I found his series about his theory intriguing. I was somewhat surprised that it did not catch on as his theory was a thorough explanation of what he believed happened. The Siri theory in particular has diverted attention from this theory. Reason being, I suppose, is that there is indeed evidence that strange goings on happened in the conclaves of 1958 and 1963 and because cօռspιʀαcιҽs are much more captivating. Additionally, a proper understanding and possible legitimate solutions to this topic requires a great deal of familiarity with quite a variety of ecclesiological doctrines. But obviously, many other theories have diverted people. Many of us prefer to be entertained rather than informed, as many of us would prefer watching a Soap Opera over instruction on mathematics.

Numerous serious and devout traditional Catholics hold different opinions on precisely how we got to where we are but all sedevacantists are agreed that a valid pope cannot do what the heads, of what most people around the world presently mistake for the Catholic Church, have done since Vatican II. A sedevacantist is a Catholic who believes that the apparent papal claimants ruling from Vatican City in recent years are not truly Successors of the Apostle Peter. Sedevacantists are those who agree that a valid Pope cannot bind the Church to heresy, doubtful Sacraments, and “Saints” who worshiped in false religions for their entire lives, or be public heretics and apostates. These things were rather obvious in better times. This Novus Ordo Church (a “New Order” not only of liturgy, but of belief and of a religious society in general) is entirely distinct from the Catholic Church apart from some of the exteriors, such as fake clerical garb, candles, and in some Churches – pews. Our position on the vacancy of the Holy See is based upon sound theological principles, the infallible teaching of Ordinary Universal Magisterium, dogma, and divine law. All sedevacantists are in agreement that since the approval of Vatican II those who have claimed the office of the Papacy are public heretics. The early Church fathers, doctors, saints and popes who have spoken to the issue have all taught that a public heretic cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical office and if a valid pope were to teach heresy he would, by that fact alone, lose that office. They base this teaching upon divine law.

This interesting tidbit is from Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati after his return from the Vatican I Council, as reported on the Novus Ordo Watch website:

The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy [And yet, how the Novus Ordo leadership has indeed exploited people’s flawed and limited understanding of infallibility to use it as a “cover for heresy” – JG]. (Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p.241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago; underlining added.)

What follows is what led to the point of my accepting the sedevacantist finding. This is the record of my encounter with Griff Ruby’s theory on when the papacy was lost, his understanding of where the hierarchy is, and how that resonated with me.

Much like the author of this book, I have always wanted to get to the root cause of problems. Growing up incredibly ignorant and worldly, but sincere, I could not help to notice how unstable families were and how depraved society was. A proximate root cause of this is contraception. The purpose being the prevention of allowing human life coming into existence. Though, gravely evil as this is, often the result is the (unknown) death of the fertilized ovum not being able to attach itself to the uterine wall. This is because chemical contraception makes the uterine wall hostile to implantation. The result of chemical “contraception” in many cases is not conception prevention, but birth prevention i.e. the death of a child, otherwise known as abortion, which is murder.

The truth about marriage and the evilness of preventing children from coming into existence within that sacred bond led me to seek all the teachings of the Church. The author of this book, like me has a strong desire for truth and for solutions to the most important problems that ail us. Problems pertaining to the soul and where we will end up eternally, and why, as opposed to things pertaining to carbon footprints and the necessity of recycling anything we possibly can. In fact, it was in 2002 that I saw an article by John Galvin in Latin Mass Magazine that did a comparison between the teaching of the Novus Ordo establishment and the Catholic Church on marriage where the stark difference in the realm of clarity between Casti Connubii by Pius XI in 1930 and Humane Vitae by Paul VI in 1968 was shown. Up until this time I read the modernist Church’s docuмents with a “they must be right” mentality and would not question them or look at them critically. After reading his article I did my own comparison of the two mentioned docuмents and found the Catholic docuмent to be very refreshing, especially when compared to the Novus Ordo establishment’s docuмents I had been reading. I also noticed that in Humane Vitae Paul VI mentioned the spacing of births once and the phrase “responsible parenthood” seven times. These phrases were not seen in Casti Connubii at all. Paul VI also replaced the primary purpose of marriage, the procreation and education of children, with the unitive aspect. Here is where I stopped assuming that every official teaching of the Novus Ordo enterprise must be true.

That issue is what lead me to take the Catholic Faith more seriously and study it more. During this time, during the 1990’s, I was also sensing trouble with the Novus Ordo establishment from a liturgical perspective. I assumed that the Novus Ordo establishment (lead by John Paul II) I was raised in was the Catholic Church. I used to go to daily Mass and I saw great inconsistencies from one Mass to the next. It seemed to me that the Mass was made in the image and likeness of the particular presider of the day. One presider would not use Eucharistic “ministers.” Others used them as much as possible. Some did not have “the sign of peace,” others left the sanctuary and seemed to shake hands with almost all in attendance. Some did not mind when people knelt for Communion, others would yell at people who did so. Some began the Mass with a long personal greeting, others avoided the greeting entirely. Some used the canon where martyrs of the early Church who died for the Faith and the Mass were named (Eucharistic prayer number one), others avoided that entirely. Saint Joseph – added to the canon in 1962 by dubious Pope John XXIII – died before the Church was established. The canon i.e. fixed rule had been established for 1500 years before “Pope” John decided on this change. Additionally, some presiders seemed to ad lib their way throughout the Mass while others seemed to stick to the script. This made quite an impression on me. Twenty years later I still vividly recall it.

The hunger for truth led me to study and love the Faith more deeply. Church teaching is traditional. You cannot learn Catholic truth without becoming what is labeled today as a “traditional” Catholic; much as being modest is labeled “prudish” or the understanding that it is impossible for members of the same gender to be married is labeled “old fashioned”. I became a true Catholic as I studied Catholic truth. I have read the Bible, the book the Church gave us, cover to cover many times. Further, having learned that the Catholic Church had the answers to questions pertaining morality, and while beginning to understand the differences between the true Mass and the new Mass, I joined a religious order and studied in the seminary for a short time. Truth is often more effectively learned in the light of objections to that truth. The objections must be raised in the most plausible light possible and then accepted, rejected, or left open, based upon all authoritative and infallible Church teaching on the subject. This book does that in spades.

I have always tended to lean towards what is considered to be conservative in regard to the Mass and my moral beliefs. My beliefs in the morality realm were considered “conservative” because most in the Novus Ordo establishment managed to convince themselves that contraception was fine regardless of what the Church taught on the issue, as even the Novus Ordo establishment taught in some small handful of their more official docuмents that it is gravely evil to deliberately prevent conception (apart from Natural Family Planning). But obviously, they seemed to feel no obligation to accept it in practice, and that contraception is considered fully acceptable behavior. Today, their present head, “Francis I,” seems to be raising doubts as to that official policy formerly upheld, at least in this general area.

I was also considered to be a “conservative” Catholic because I did not like having Eucharistic ministers and the friendly greeting of the priest at the beginning of Mass, and unlike others I did not feel special if the priest left the sanctuary to shake my hand. I felt angry. He abandons the purported Eucharist on the altar to do this. That is when I began thinking something was wrong with the Novus Ordo establishment. As you can see, there were two main things going on during my conversion process. I was concerned with infallible teaching pertaining to morality and I had a great respect for the liturgy. So, when I started seeing odd or different teaching pertaining to marriage, and that the Mass was becoming more and more like a social enterprise where the duties of the priest where usurped by the laity, both male and female, I became concerned. This is what started me looking more carefully at both the pre-Vatican II teachings of the Church and the teachings of the Novus Ordo enterprise established at Vatican II.

Eventually I needed to know how the Mass was supposed to be offered so I got my hands on The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Monsignor Klaus Gamber with the forward written by Cardinal Ratzinger. Cardinal Ratzinger, like John Paul II, was someone I admired at the time. The book really opened my eyes about the Mass. I learned that the Mass was organically developed and was not intended to be reinvented. I learned that the new Mass was a complete break with tradition. This was actually horrifying to me. Why the need to completely reinvent the Mass?

I started posing questions to my conservative friends and on websites about the true Mass and was informed about the indult. I learned that the indult was an updated version (1962) of the true Mass which the Popes allowed those attached to it to attend where permission was granted by the bishop. I thought it was great that the Catholic pope was decent enough to allow Catholics to go to the Catholic version of the Mass. I couldn’t help but wonder why we needed permission to go the true Mass, as the exception, when it should be the rule. Basically, we were asking the “pope” permission to be Catholic i.e. worship as Catholics always had. So, I started rotating between the indult rushed through by the Novus Ordo priest who gave rather dull sermons and a Latin version of the Ad orientem (facing “liturgical East” or God i.e. “with his back to the people”) new Mass accompanied by polyphony and better sermons. I was rather content with both of these Masses when compared to the typical Novus Ordo service (not “Mass” because the Body of Christ is not present) throughout the country. These were the exceptions in the Novus Ordo Church that you had to go hunting for.

At this point I had become familiar with The Wanderer, The Remnant and Catholic Family News periodicals and was learning how bad the bishops were from the Wanderer, and how bad the “pope” was from The Remnant and Catholic Family News. The “pope” being at the root of the problems was something I had not considered. I truly figured that the pope was some helpless guy in Rome who really could not help what was going on in all the Churches throughout the world.

I mentioned that I like to get to the root cause of problems. By now it was quite obvious to me that there was a problem with the Novus Ordo, both the Church and its Mass. When trying to get to the root cause here, Vatican II kept popping up. “Vatican II is when everything changed.” “Vatican II is where it all went wrong.” “Vatican II just needs to be properly implemented.” It had been thirty years (at the time) since Vatican II closed. How long does it take to properly implement a Council? So, by this point I am learning that things have been done to the Mass that should have not been done and that a Council was approved that should not have been approved. The question arises, who approved these things? The answer is “the Pope.” Now we get to the “Pope” question. Can a pope approve such things?

In my studies, I eventually learned that in addition to the Council, which has increasingly come under fire from all truly serious, pious, and knowledgeable Catholics regarding its heretical teachings on ecuмenism and religious liberty, and the Mass, which was disemboweled and protestantized, that the Church had changed all of the Sacraments! Who instituted and approved these changes? The “pope” of course. Now I really start looking at the top, the pope, as the root cause of all the problems. I came to find that all the Sacraments apart from Baptism, Penance and marriage were doubtful or certainly invalid, though the Rites of the still valid Sacraments were changed as well. What was most disconcerting, apart from the Eucharist itself, was that the rite of ordination (of priests) was doubtful and that the rite of consecration (of bishops) was certainly invalid.

This means that any Sacrament performed by a priest ordained in the new rite or ordained by a bishop consecrated in the new rite was invalid (other than Baptism which can be administered by anyone). I knew that a valid pope could be sinful, cowardly, and imprudent, but that the Rock upon which the Church was built could be the same rock which destroys it seemed unlikely at best. Now I was fully convinced that the papacy had been usurped by false claimants.

Here is where I decided that I needed to extricate myself entirely out of the Novus Ordo establishment as this could not possibly be the true Church which was founded by Christ and would be with us until the end of time. I had begun going to a “schismatic” (schismatic from heretical Rome) Church which offered the true Mass and was offered by a validly ordained priest. What a novel idea. I do hope this valid priest offering a valid Mass idea catches on eventually. In fact, the first time I went to Mass at this Church (shortly before I learned what is related above about the new Sacraments) was the last time I went to any Mass within the Novus Ordo structure including the indult. This was based upon supernatural reasons. It was not long after that I realized that the indult was mostly offered by invalid priests and even if offered by a valid priest he could distribute the “Eucharist” invalidly consecrated at a Novus Ordo service to the faithful at the Mass, as hosts left over from a previous Novus Ordo service is what is usually distributed to a number of the faithful. Additionally, when you support the Novus Ordo Church, even through attendance at the indult Mass, you are supporting everything the Novus Ordo does, such as wrecking Churches, paying for lawsuits to cover their crimes, and abusing and protestantizing our children.

It was around this time, late 2004, that I shared my views with Michael Cain of Daily Catholic and he asked if I would like my views published. I agreed, and the result was, “Legitimate Reasons Why There Are Doubts About the Conciliar Popes”, published in Daily Catholic on May 8, 2005.

At that point, merely accepting the sedevacantist finding was a big deal in light of all the opposition against it. I believed that finding itself resolved everything. Finding out why all these things happened to the Mass, Sacraments and Church in general is all I was looking for. The fact that it was not a pope who instituted all these changes answered that. But as I came to find out later, it does not resolve everything. It simply shows why things are the way they are in the Novus Ordo Church and why the true Church is the way it is, scattered and disoriented, as this is what happens when “the Shepherd is struck.” I did not even consider how the Church would obtain her next pope. Griff believes the pope (Paul VI) visibly lost his office with the promulgation of the docuмents of Vatican II. My main objections to this pertained to Vatican II itself and how we could accept any of it at all as having come from a legitimate authority; additionally, I believe John XXIII may have taught heresy in the encyclical Pacem in Terris, and further, many other sedevacantists seemed convinced that Pius XII was the last Pope. Despite all this I still believe, thirteen years later, that Griff’s theory on this issue is the most reasonable.

I did not think it was that big a deal whether the Papacy was lost in 1958, 1964, or anywhere in between, and am still open to the Papacy having been lost anytime within that timeframe. Certainly, by the end of Vatican II Paul VI legitimacy was unacceptable to the dogmas of the Church in regard to papal theology. John XXIII and Paul VI (up until the promulgation of Vatican II docuмents) could properly be regarded as “papa dubious” (doubtful pope) which – in practice anyway – equals “papa nullis,” (no pope) even if the Church should subsequently rule otherwise. So, for example, the CMRI (Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae i.e. The Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen) praxis is therefore perfectly obedient in implementing those things imposed by Pius XII and ignoring those things imposed by doubtful popes. This book will go to show that as of Vatican II, Paul VI and his successors ceased to be even “doubtful” as to papal claims, but positively and officially non-papal.

The most difficult objection against sedevacantism is “where is your Church since no one has been around for over fifty years to give the papal mandate?” Who has the ability to produce new valid and lawful clerics with Catholic authority? Griff contends that Catholic bishops possess this; others, Novus Ordo and otherwise, contend that heretics possess this, and yet others contend that no one has it.

After reading this book the answer became clear. Then why is so much ink spilled on it? Because so many people refuse to accept that answer. In this book, Griff gives each and every theory to the contrary a full voice. He leaves no stone unturned. I do not think there is an objection possible that he does not raise and respond to in the book. This book comes in two parts. The first part is a detailed crash course in the applicable ecclesiological doctrines, and the second pertains to the theory on where our hierarchy is today. I believe this book, in addition to being a solution to the crisis, will be a great reference book for many years to come. Even if the theory does not to prove out, the first Part of this work remains a vital textbook in Catholic ecclesiology, an essential guide for all seminarians and clergy and other interested parties.

From the beginning of my conversion until now I naturally assumed in my pure and simple piety that the traditional clergy were the hierarchy. But obviously, the location of the hierarchy should be something we can be sure about if possible since the Church is to continue until the end of time. I was shocked to learn how many self-appointed lay experts seem to be absolutely positive that the traditional clergy are not the hierarchy.

When I started discussing the hierarchy with Griff I would go to the traditional Catholic forums and look for manuals and commentary from authoritative sources. There was one forum in particular where there is an abundance of manuals available for perusal. The abundance of anti-traditional clergy postings in regard to them being the legitimate hierarchy was rather disconcerting. So, I would bring these posts to Griff’s attention. I would then post his responses on the forums or post in my own words a summation of what Griff taught me and found that his responses were irrefutable. A person could willfully choose to reject the responses (and with it the whole of sound Catholic ecclesiology), but the almost total lack of any attempt to refute it constitutes a most astonishing evidence that in all likelihood it cannot be refuted. I have not seen anyone other than Griff respond with, what seems to me, a satisfactory answer. Some intelligent sedevacantists simply claim the location of the hierarchy is a “mystery.” They say this knowing that the Church must be visible and that a hierarchy must exist but claim its location is “mystery”, perhaps as a polite way of agreeing to ignore the elephant in the room and “not talk about” things they don’t want to think about, things they have in fact given up on finding any answers to. But the idea that the hierarchy could become such a mystery that it cannot be found or identified by anyone contradicts the dogma of a visible Church.

Other traditional Catholics who are not sedevacantists have preached systematic disobedience to what they mistake for legitimate authority for almost half a century (just another shade of the “mystery” argument) as a way to claim that the Church must be visible. The incredible irony is that such Catholics end up advocating for an apostate pope. A stranger phenomenon could not be imagined. A valid pope is the unifying head of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Keep in mind that papal theology teaches that a valid pope is “the sure norm of Faith” and must be submitted to. Systematic disobedience to a pope at all, let alone a string of them all in a row for over half a century, is an incredible contradiction to Catholic papal theology as a valid pope cannot be a public heretic, let alone apostate; and it must be mentioned again that valid popes must be submitted to on all things they bind on the Church, especially councils, sacraments, liturgy, canon law and saints in order for salvation to be possible.

If anyone is familiar with internet forums, you will be quite aware of the lack of charity that is rather prevalent on almost all of them when it comes to controversial topics. I have witnessed Griff defending his thesis on traditional Catholic forums and have never seen him reply in snide manner. Yet his defense of this theory resulted in Griff being permanently banned from one such, not because he could not prove his theory, but because he could.

If the traditional Catholic clergy is not the hierarchy, then who is? The responses, not from Griff, but from the other sedevacantists whom we respect seemed rather strange, ranging from, “hidden among the Novus Ordo hierarchy” through “nobody knows” to “they don’t exist.” Is that the best the sedevacantists have to offer in the place of Catholic ecclesiology? No wonder sedevacantism finds so few takers despite the strength of the finding itself!

Time went on and Griff and I have kept contact throughout with me asking the questions and him giving the answers. I played devil’s advocate to the hilt but he was very patient with the responding to all my objections. Eventually we both started writing for the Four Marks, headed by a wonderful lady by the name of Kathleen Plumb. In this most reputable publication, Griff had an article entitled, “The Mystery of the Hierarchy” September 2012, which described most briefly each of the four options: Novus Ordo (whether open, resisted, or hidden), unknowns, nonexistent, or traditional clergy. This explained by process of elimination his view that the traditional Catholic clergy have to be the hierarchy.

My discussions with Griff on where the Church was inspired me to continue reading more and more serious theological manuals on ecclesiology. I find Griff’s theory on where the hierarchy is to be a systematic refutation of all the objections. The only thing that kept causing me to doubt and seek to challenge whether it is correct, along with my lack of theological qualification, is the sheer number of serious Catholics (the vocal minority) who haven’t accepted it, though again, they do not make any case in a convincing fashion. I ultimately found the usual sedevacantist explanations on where the hierarchy is inadequate; mainly because the explanation they give is more about where the hierarchy is not rather than where it is. The one other concept that made the most sense to me was the Siri theory as this at least explained how we could have a “pope” that was not infallible. All these theories are weighed carefully and objectively in this book. In fact, all that I have read from those who object to the theory that the only known Catholic clergy are the hierarchy, has shown me that they do not make a case at all. They always seem to have supposed proofs about where the hierarchy isn’t, but cannot show where precisely, and who, therefore, the hierarchy is. Their “proofs” have one and all proven unsatisfactory.

Griff wonderfully presents in this book his theory on when precisely the papacy was lost and even more wonderfully where the hierarchy is. I am a firsthand witness of his theory on the hierarchy emerging as something stronger and stronger, and to which no legitimate refutation has even been attempted.

To conclude I will add that one of the things that impressed me most about this book is that the author relies heavily on renowned theologians such as Msgr. G. Van Noort’s great work “Dogmatic Theology” and many others as well such as Berry, Journet and Ott. Bona fide theologians make clear the Catholic teaching, presenting what has been commonly taught throughout the ages. On the occasion where they present a viable minority opinion they make the readers aware that this opinion is a minority opinion or one’s own opinion. Van Noort as we should expect makes this clarification when necessary. It is important to note that it is the common teachings and the doctrines of the Church which Griff relies on from Van Noort and all the other sources he has referenced. There is nothing dependent upon any minority finding (though some few are discussed), nor does this work pretend to resolve any of the legitimate theological questions existing before the outset of our current situation.

When seeking safe, secure and untainted truth we should all rely on approved Church teaching rather than our own wit. I implore all who would seek to become, or who function as, Catholic clergy, and all other interested parties, to look to the authoritative teachings found in the pre-Vatican II era rather than the current writings of most Catholics which seem to be long on sensationalism but short on sound doctrine, especially in regard to ecclesiology, for the solution to this Crisis. They can start by carefully reading and studying this book. May Almighty God be praised!

Author Topic: Totalism vs. The Cassiciacuм Thesis (Read 1128 times)

Lover of Truth

Totalism vs. The Cassiciacuм Thesis

Lover of Truth

Re: Totalism vs. The Cassiciacuм Thesis

Cornelius

Re: Totalism vs. The Cassiciacuм Thesis

Lover of Truth

Re: Totalism vs. The Cassiciacuм Thesis

Yeti

Re: Totalism vs. The Cassiciacuм Thesis

2Vermont

Re: Totalism vs. The Cassiciacuм Thesis

Lover of Truth

Re: Totalism vs. The Cassiciacuм Thesis

Yeti

Re: Totalism vs. The Cassiciacuм Thesis

Lover of Truth

Re: Totalism vs. The Cassiciacuм Thesis

2Vermont

Re: Totalism vs. The Cassiciacuм Thesis

Lover of Truth

Re: Totalism vs. The Cassiciacuм Thesis

Lover of Truth

Re: Totalism vs. The Cassiciacuм Thesis

Lover of Truth

Re: Totalism vs. The Cassiciacuм Thesis

Lover of Truth

Re: Totalism vs. The Cassiciacuм Thesis