Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Quo vadis Domine on November 26, 2019, 05:31:22 AM
-
A serious question for those who hold the Cassiciacuм thesis to be true. Can you give me a good answer why holding it doesn’t contradict this proposition from the Vatican Council?:
The First Vatican Council, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, July 18, 1870: “1. That Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world… full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church… 9. If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to discipline and government… let him be anathema.”
-
Bump. Any help here would be appreciated.
-
It would be interesting to hear from someone who holds this position (Ladislaus?). I do not, but I *think* the idea is that these men are not popes, but I may (still) be confused about that. Also, I'm not sure that the portion of the Council that you highlighted applies. Perhaps DesLauriers' (or Bishop Sanborn's) writings on the CT address it?
-
I am bumping this again, because I am interested in hearing from Ladislaus +/or some other person that agrees with the Cassiciacuм Thesis as well. Perhaps they were busy over Thanksgiving holiday....
-
This quote has nothing to do with CT.
Why don't you start by explaining why you think that it contradicts CT.
This is a dogmatic teaching regarding the nature of papal authority vs. the errors of the Orthodox and other schismatics. If anything it goes against R&R.
CT merely states that the person has been duly elected (received the designation of the Church) but has an impediment to exercising the authority formally.
-
This is a CRISIS IN THE CHURCH thread if I ever saw one.
Please observe the proper sub-forums!
-
This quote has nothing to do with CT.
Why don't you start by explaining why you think that it contradicts CT.
This is a dogmatic teaching regarding the nature of papal authority vs. the errors of the Orthodox and other schismatics. If anything it goes against R&R.
CT merely states that the person has been duly elected (received the designation of the Church) but has an impediment to exercising the authority formally.
“This quote has nothing to do with CT.
Why don't you start by explaining why you think that it contradicts CT.“
I think it's self explanatory if one is to believe he (Bergoglio) is a true pope.
“ This is a dogmatic teaching regarding the nature of papal authority vs. the errors of the Orthodox and other schismatics. If anything it goes against R&R.”
I absolutely agree with you.
“ CT merely states that the person has been duly elected (received the designation of the Church) but has an impediment to exercising the authority formally. “
Fair enough, that’s an adequate answer to my question. So basically, you and others who hold the thesis suggest that he is in no way a true or real pope, just a place holder?
-
I am bumping this again, because I am interested in hearing from Ladislaus +/or some other person that agrees with the Cassiciacuм Thesis as well. Perhaps they were busy over Thanksgiving holiday....
Why would someone downvote you for this post?
-
Why would someone downvote you for this post?
Because I suspect a particular member who comes back over and over again goes out of his way to downvote my posts. I've gotten used to it.
-
I didn't think there was anything wrong with your question, QVD. Lad's response came off quite defensive.
-
I think it's self explanatory if one is to believe he (Bergoglio) is a true pope.
Well, here's the cause of your confusion, the equivocal use of the expression "true pope".
According to CT, Bergoglio is not a true pope, but more in the state of a pope-elect who never took on the office due to an impediment. Bergoglio cannot exercise papal authority. Bergoglio is not a pope in re, in actuality or in reality, but merely a pope in potentia ... in potency.
It's very similar to the state of a newly-elected U.S. President in the month of December right after a November election. Is he a "true" President? Well, he's been elected, but he has no authority. Same thing applies to Bergoglio.
-
Perhaps DesLauriers' (or Bishop Sanborn's) writings on the CT address it?
Yes, Bishop Sanborn specifically answers the question, "is [can't remember when he wrote it] a true pope?" He answers in the negative. But I can't find the link right now.
-
I didn't think there was anything wrong with your question, QVD. Lad's response came off quite defensive.
No, I wasn't being defensive. I just don't see how CT contradicts the quotation ... so, rather than speculate, I was asking that Quo first articulate what he perceives to be the point of contradiction.
[PS -- I did not downthumb anything.]
I've been rather busy lately, so my responses are much shorter than usual.
-
I didn't think there was anything wrong with your question, QVD. Lad's response came off quite defensive.
Thanks Vermont, but I didn’t take Lad’s post in a bad way after reading the whole thing.
-
Well, here's the cause of your confusion, the equivocal use of the expression "true pope".
According to CT, Bergoglio is not a true pope, but more in the state of a pope-elect who never took on the office due to an impediment. Bergoglio cannot exercise papal authority. Bergoglio is not a pope in re, in actuality or in reality, but merely a pope in potentia ... in potency.
It's very similar to the state of a newly-elected U.S. President in the month of December right after a November election. Is he a "true" President? Well, he's been elected, but he has no authority. Same thing applies to Bergoglio.
I appreciate all of your answers and I don’t reject the thesis outright. It seems to me that the only issue it resolves is the ability for the Church to obtain a true pope. I don’t see it as an answer to the issue of a visible magisterium. Can you tell me what other problems, if any, it resolves?
-
No, I wasn't being defensive. I just don't see how CT contradicts the quotation ... so, rather than speculate, I was asking that Quo first articulate what he perceives to be the point of contradiction.
[PS -- I did not downthumb anything.]
I've been rather busy lately, so my responses are much shorter than usual.
My apologies then. It sounded that way to me. Not to mention that his question sat for days with no answer from any member who takes the CT position.
Just so you know, I know you did not down thumb my post.
-
Sorry, want to bump again. Lad., if you have the time, I’d appreciate an answer to my last post. Thanks in advance.
-
I appreciate all of your answers and I don’t reject the thesis outright. It seems to me that the only issue it resolves is the ability for the Church to obtain a true pope. I don’t see it as an answer to the issue of a visible magisterium. Can you tell me what other problems, if any, it resolves?
Well, in my own opinion ... and I don't think a lot of CT adherents draw this conclusion from the principles, but I do ... it also solves the problem of episcopal jurisdiction. I believe that material-pope still has the power of designation, and so he can appoint Bishops to Sees. Those bishops, then, could formally exercise jurisdiction provided they themselves have no impediment to doing so (e.g. heresy). I do believe that many bishops, especially the Eastern Rite bishops, are formally still Catholic. Many adhere to V2 teaching only because they THINK it comes from the Church, and so would only be in material error.
It also provides an answer to the issue with sedevacantism of who has the authority or the right to declare the See vacant. Obviously, we can't have armchair lay theologians deposing popes. I knew one guy who declared Pius IX an anti-pope on account of some heresy he perceived in his writings. Yes, that's a fringe case, but the principles of straight sedevacantism do not in principle preclude such a thing. There has to be SOME role played by the Church in the entire matter, and it cannot be left to individual Catholics to decide, and I think that CT provides a good answer for this.
It's primarily that latter reason which has me gravitating towards CT, since private judgment can never suffice for determining papal legitimacy ... which must be known with the certainty of faith.
BTW, just because I have taken a liking to the CT position ... because I believe that it addresses well some of the legitimate complaints that R&R have about sedevacantism ... I am certainly not dogmatic about it. It's just an opinion, like so many opinions out there.
-
My apologies then. It sounded that way to me. Not to mention that his question sat for days with no answer from any member who takes the CT position.
Just so you know, I know you did not down thumb my post.
No need to apologize. I've been rather busy of late, and I kind of just jumped in this thread and made a quick hit-and-run reply, the shortness of which might easily be construed as being rude or ill-tempered.
-
Well, in my own opinion ... and I don't think a lot of CT adherents draw this conclusion from the principles, but I do ... it also solves the problem of episcopal jurisdiction. I believe that material-pope still has the power of designation, and so he can appoint Bishops to Sees. Those bishops, then, could formally exercise jurisdiction provided they themselves have no impediment to doing so (e.g. heresy). I do believe that many bishops, especially the Eastern Rite bishops, are formally still Catholic. Many adhere to V2 teaching only because they THINK it comes from the Church, and so would only be in material error.
It also provides an answer to the issue with sedevacantism of who has the authority or the right to declare the See vacant. Obviously, we can't have armchair lay theologians deposing popes. I knew one guy who declared Pius IX an anti-pope on account of some heresy he perceived in his writings. Yes, that's a fringe case, but the principles of straight sedevacantism do not in principle preclude such a thing. There has to be SOME role played by the Church in the entire matter, and it cannot be left to individual Catholics to decide, and I think that CT provides a good answer for this.
It's primarily that latter reason which has me gravitating towards CT, since private judgment can never suffice for determining papal legitimacy ... which must be known with the certainty of faith.
BTW, just because I have taken a liking to the CT position ... because I believe that it addresses well some of the legitimate complaints that R&R have about sedevacantism ... I am certainly not dogmatic about it. It's just an opinion, like so many opinions out there.
Thanks Lad, you gave me something to mull over.