Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: A Critical Study on the Material Pope Thesis  (Read 4380 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ctarozzi

Re: A Critical Study on the Material Pope Thesis
« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2018, 09:23:24 AM »
Fr Nitoglia's Bio




Father Curzio Nitoglia is Italian. He was ordained a priest by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre in 1984 in Econe, Switzeland.
He left the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) to join the Istituto Mater Boni Consilii, a Sedevacantist group of priests, until leaving it in 2006 following his disagreement with this group about the Thesis of Cassiciacuм.
He is now the Chaplain of the “Discipole del Cenacolo”, a religious community of nuns near Rome. He is also the editor of the renowned Traditional publication “SI SI NO NO” and a prolific writer on theological, historical and political matters.
 
This article appeared originally in Italian on Fr. Nitoglia’s website:
http://doncurzionitoglia.net/2013/02/20/251/
 
Logged

Offline cathman7

Re: A Critical Study on the Material Pope Thesis
« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2018, 11:48:47 AM »
Wow, I didn't realize he was the editor of Si, Si, No, No!
Logged

Offline RomanTheo

Re: A Critical Study on the Material Pope Thesis
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2018, 12:59:10 PM »
The following is worthy of consideration.

"Furthermore, Saint Pius X wisely wished that the certainty and validity of the election of the Pope should be out of any doubt and therefore eliminated any penalty invalidating the election of the Pope brought by any previously reigning Pope ( for example, Pope Julius II, in 1505, he had sanctioned Simony as invalidating the papal election ). [15]
 
"As for Simony, it consists in the gravely illicit exchange of spiritual goods with material ones (e.g. a cardinal buys the papal election for 10 million). Now St. Thomas equates Simony with Atheism or Irreligion, since a simoniac does not believe in God because he buys spiritual things with money as if they were material (S. Th., II-II, q. 100, a. 1). (...) But the atheist or the irreligious, who does not believe in God, in Religion and therefore not even in the Church, cannot want the good of the Church and of souls. And yet, according to St. Pius X and Canon Law, he is also a Pope in act. [16] So the path of the "Thesis of Cassiciacuм" ("partial Sedevacantism") finishes, at its end, in a barred road like the one, already barred, of the "heretical Pope" ("total Sedevacantism").

Footnote [16] "The same comparison applies to a schismatic or heretic cardinal, possibly elected Pope. If the atheist is validly elected with even greater reason [can] the heretic, who does not deny all religion, but only some of his Dogmas. Therefore the Bull of Paul IV (cuм ex Apostolatus officio, 15 February 1559 ...  ceases as [along with] the Sanction concerning the Simony of Julius II of 1505."is a disciplinary act of the Church ..." (SZ Ehler - JB Morrall, Chiesa e Stato attraverso i secoli, Commentary, page 206). The fact of not having been taken over by the CIC of 1917 and being a disciplinary act, it falls ipso facto even if not explicitly repealed as the Bubble of Julius II of 1505 on Simony."

Logged

Offline PG

Re: A Critical Study on the Material Pope Thesis
« Reply #8 on: February 25, 2018, 06:28:24 PM »
I just finished reading the paper, and it is pretty good.  I like how it is long enough to cover the theory and its adherents sufficiently, but short enough not to be a bore.  

I think the main thing one needs to understand and take from this article is that sedeprivation adherents judge the internal forum.  And, the church cannot do that.  Yet, it is essential to their reasoning.  The paper said that because these novus ordo popes do not have "the intention" to guide the church as Christ dictated, they cannot be pope in act, only in potency.  Because, true popes act according to Christ in virtue of his promise.  And, this "intention" to guide is synonymous with the end of the papacy.  And, the end of the papacy is a papacy in act.  But, because these novus ordo popes acts are bad, their intention is bad, and therefore they are not popes in act or true popes.  They can only be popes in potency.  

Do you see the problem?  The adherents to this cassiciacuм theory judge the internal forum(ones intentions), and the church does not do that.  It is essential to their reasoning and their existence.  It is for this reason that it is not a catholic theory, and that those adhering to it are doubtfully catholic. 

This is a dangerous thesis.  It puts a pretty face on top of an ugly monster.  The monster is sedevacantism and usurpation of authority that is always doomed to a conclavism once fully matured. 
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: A Critical Study on the Material Pope Thesis
« Reply #9 on: February 25, 2018, 07:19:46 PM »
Problem with this is that a material pope is not merely a pope in PURE potency.  There are degrees of actualization in potency, and the material pope is partially actualized.

Let's take the example of the dead body of Lazarus (to be raised from the dead).  Is the dead body of Lazarus a human being in PURE potency?  Is the dead body just a Lazarus in pure potency?  Or is it Lazarus partially actualized?  What then of a pile of chemicals that would suffice to reconstitute the body?  So, you see, there are degrees of actualization towards the potency.  In the dead body of Lazarus you have the human DNA, and it is in some sense materially a human being ... much more so than a pile of chemicals.  So the problem with this analysis is the failure to understand a continuum between potency and act ... and thinking of the terms as two opposite poles in binary opposition.

So I look at the material pope more like a dead body without a soul, but it's still really a human being in some sense, and is to some extent actualized into a human being.  I don't see the material pope as being in PURE potency.

So it would seem to me that Father is confusing the distinction between formal/material with actual/potential.  There's some overlap here, but they are not the same thing.  So can someone be a purely formal pope without being materially pope?  No.  You need BOTH the formal and the material.  But once someone is an actual pope, he's no longer a potential pope.  So these are different.

While a dead body is in potency to becoming a human being, it is in actu a human body.  So it actually is SOMETHING in actu while being something else in potentia.  So it IS something and not JUST in the state of BECOMING something.  But a PURE potency is not anything and is a relative term.  This dead body, then, is in fact in POTENCY to being a living human being, but is at the same time in ACT a HUMAN BODY.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
« previous next »