Author Topic: What I believe  (Read 843 times)

Troubled Teen

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 47 times
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm the guy who sucks (plus I got depression)
Re: What I believe
« Reply #20 on: December 15, 2017, 02:46:03 AM »
The thesis says that a man who is pope materially is "NOT the pope". A theft materially exists alone without the form, and is NOT a sin of theft, yet it deprived someone of his possession just like the sin does.

No, you don't understand the philosophy.

I'm reasonably certain that you're the one who's misunderstanding the Cassiciacum thesis. According to the thesis, a material pope is not matter for the papacy as material sin is matter for sin or bread and wine are matter for the Blessed Sacrament (in fact, Bp. Guérard basically asserted the complete opposite by claiming that Paul VI and John Paul II could not have the form of the pontificate bestowed on them owing to their lack of an objective will to do the good of the Church); a material pope is a man who shows all the certain signs of having been validly elected but who remains a non-pope due to the absence of the internal conditions allegedly necessary to receive the form of the pontificate.

The Thesis™ is basically gnostic in that it derogates from the Christian understanding of reality where God makes His supernatural truth known via the intermediary of certain signs embedded in the material world. I have great esteem for and even venerate Bp. Guérard, but how I loathe the Thesis™! It's a shame that his latter-day followers have only seized upon that particular aspect of his thought, to the exclusion of all the rest of that great man's wisdom and accomplishments.

Let me note in passing that in his "Cassiciacum papers", Bp. Guérard spends quite a bit of time demonstrating the validity and liceity of the 1963 and 1978 conclaves, demolishing any hope of "proving" sedevacantism by alleging that those conclaves were unlawful (there's some evidence of foul play in 1958, 1978 and 2013, but it's theologically inapplicable).
"Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred." - Ecclesiastes 9:1

"In the present time the directive is to stick to the essentials of Christianity: to flee the world, believe in Christ, do all the good that one can, strive for detachment from created things, avoid false prophets and remember death." - Fr. Leonardo Castellani
 

TKGS

Re: What I believe
« Reply #21 on: December 15, 2017, 01:30:48 PM »
The Thesis™ is basically gnostic in that it derogates from the Christian understanding of reality where God makes His supernatural truth known via the intermediary of certain signs embedded in the material world. I have great esteem for and even venerate Bp. Guérard, but how I loathe the Thesis™! It's a shame that his latter-day followers have only seized upon that particular aspect of his thought, to the exclusion of all the rest of that great man's wisdom and accomplishments.

I would like to confirm, absolutely, that by "The Thesis™" you are specifically referring to what is commonly known as the "Cassiciacum thesis".
 

Rubecorks

Re: What I believe
« Reply #22 on: December 15, 2017, 05:33:16 PM »
The thesis says that a man who is pope materially is "NOT the pope". A theft materially exists alone without the form, and is NOT a sin of theft, yet it deprived someone of his possession just like the sin does.

No, you don't understand the philosophy.

I'm reasonably certain that you're the one who's misunderstanding the Cassiciacum thesis. According to the thesis, a material pope is not matter for the papacy as material sin is matter for sin or bread and wine are matter for the Blessed Sacrament (in fact, Bp. Guérard basically asserted the complete opposite by claiming that Paul VI and John Paul II could not have the form of the pontificate bestowed on them owing to their lack of an objective will to do the good of the Church); a material pope is a man who shows all the certain signs of having been validly elected but who remains a non-pope due to the absence of the internal conditions allegedly necessary to receive the form of the pontificate.

The Thesis™ is basically gnostic in that it derogates from the Christian understanding of reality where God makes His supernatural truth known via the intermediary of certain signs embedded in the material world. I have great esteem for and even venerate Bp. Guérard, but how I loathe the Thesis™! It's a shame that his latter-day followers have only seized upon that particular aspect of his thought, to the exclusion of all the rest of that great man's wisdom and accomplishments.

Let me note in passing that in his "Cassiciacum papers", Bp. Guérard spends quite a bit of time demonstrating the validity and liceity of the 1963 and 1978 conclaves, demolishing any hope of "proving" sedevacantism by alleging that those conclaves were unlawful (there's some evidence of foul play in 1958, 1978 and 2013, but it's theologically inapplicable).

No Mr. TT, you don't understand the philosophy. It shows through on everything you say.  Did you study Thomistic philosophy, particularly Ontology?

« Last Edit: December 15, 2017, 06:40:24 PM by Rubecorks »
 

Troubled Teen

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 47 times
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm the guy who sucks (plus I got depression)
Re: What I believe
« Reply #23 on: December 15, 2017, 08:07:27 PM »
No Mr. TT, you don't understand the philosophy. It shows through on everything you say.  Did you study Thomistic philosophy, particularly Ontology?

I'm a dilettante with no formal training, but Aristotelian philosophy is glorified common sense and therefore I'm perfectly within my rights to reject a thesis at odds with common sense as contrary to sound philosophy. I've definitely sampled and reflected on enough literature over the years to understand the basic metaphysical claims of the Cassiciacum thesis. My own claims are only as strong as the reasons I allege; let's see you refute those reasons if you want to continue the discussion.

TKGS: Yes, I mean the Cassiciacum thesis.
"Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred." - Ecclesiastes 9:1

"In the present time the directive is to stick to the essentials of Christianity: to flee the world, believe in Christ, do all the good that one can, strive for detachment from created things, avoid false prophets and remember death." - Fr. Leonardo Castellani
 

TKGS

Re: What I believe
« Reply #24 on: December 15, 2017, 09:20:23 PM »
According to the thesis, a material pope is not matter for the papacy as material sin is matter for sin or bread and wine are matter for the Blessed Sacrament (in fact, Bp. Guérard basically asserted the complete opposite by claiming that Paul VI and John Paul II could not have the form of the pontificate bestowed on them owing to their lack of an objective will to do the good of the Church); a material pope is a man who shows all the certain signs of having been validly elected but who remains a non-pope due to the absence of the internal conditions allegedly necessary to receive the form of the pontificate.

The Thesis™ is basically gnostic in that it derogates from the Christian understanding of reality where God makes His supernatural truth known via the intermediary of certain signs embedded in the material world. I have great esteem for and even venerate Bp. Guérard, but how I loathe the Thesis™! It's a shame that his latter-day followers have only seized upon that particular aspect of his thought, to the exclusion of all the rest of that great man's wisdom and accomplishments.

Let me note in passing that in his "Cassiciacum papers", Bp. Guérard spends quite a bit of time demonstrating the validity and liceity of the 1963 and 1978 conclaves, demolishing any hope of "proving" sedevacantism by alleging that those conclaves were unlawful (there's some evidence of foul play in 1958, 1978 and 2013, but it's theologically inapplicable).

It seems you have more knowledge of the Cassiciacum Thesis than I have as you seem to have more knowledge of some of the source writings.  It seems that your description is very similar to virtually all other descriptions I've read.  I believe I understand those descriptions but, for the life of me, I have not yet understood how most proponents of the Cassiciacum Thesis come to their conclusions.

It would seem that I agree with your conclusions as to the utility of the Thesis.

Now I would like to see you read the Griff Ruby Thesis and let us know your opinion on that matter.
 

Troubled Teen

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 47 times
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm the guy who sucks (plus I got depression)
Re: What I believe
« Reply #25 on: December 15, 2017, 11:27:07 PM »
Good timing - I read most of the second part of Sede Vacante! a few months ago and found some aspects surprisingly cogent.

Griff is to be commended for his honest grappling with some aspects of Catholic doctrine which "normal" sedevacantists tend to pass over, such as the indefectibility of the local Church of Rome and the corresponding infallibility of papal elections, but his proposed solutions still come up short. His central claim - that the wording of Lumen gentium created a new church which the Catholic Church merely "subsists in" - is utterly demolished by the fact that the words "subsistit in" were originally intended to have an orthodox meaning; furthermore, membership in an undeclared sect (and the Conciliar Church can be considered a de facto sect) does not ipso facto sever one from the Church without pertinacious heresy or schism, as Griff himself admits. I see no basis for claiming that the Council Fathers walked into the Council in full possession of their Catholic offices and walked out without them.

His idea that Lumen gentium granted episcopal jurisdiction to all bishops who are Catholic in faith does have some merit in my view, and might explain why Providence blessed the efforts of someone like Archbishop Lefebvre who was effectively exercising episcopal jurisdiction in dioceses all over the world. It could be likened to philosopher Thomas Pink's interesting thesis that Dignitatis humanae changed Church policy, not doctrine.

While I'd have to review the theological loci which Griff puts forward as proof of his hypothesis, I'm almost positive that the position which I've outlined here saves the appearances more satisfactorily than his does - in fact, I'm pretty darn convinced that it's true. Once again, I invite all theologically competent members to critique the ideas I've put forward and even send insults my way if they deem it necessary.
"Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred." - Ecclesiastes 9:1

"In the present time the directive is to stick to the essentials of Christianity: to flee the world, believe in Christ, do all the good that one can, strive for detachment from created things, avoid false prophets and remember death." - Fr. Leonardo Castellani
 

Rubecorks

Re: What I believe
« Reply #26 on: December 16, 2017, 08:23:20 AM »
No Mr. TT, you don't understand the philosophy. It shows through on everything you say.  Did you study Thomistic philosophy, particularly Ontology?

I'm a dilettante with no formal training, but Aristotelian philosophy is glorified common sense and therefore I'm perfectly within my rights to reject a thesis at odds with common sense as contrary to sound philosophy. I've definitely sampled and reflected on enough literature over the years to understand the basic metaphysical claims of the Cassiciacum thesis. My own claims are only as strong as the reasons I allege; let's see you refute those reasons if you want to continue the discussion.

TKGS: Yes, I mean the Cassiciacum thesis.

Sorry, but an amateur in merely Aristotelian ontology simply won't do. This is Catholic philosophy now. Aristotle didn't "reason" that the spiritual world existed. Aristotle said that matter and form CANNOT be separated, and cannot be even thought of as separate. Catholic philosophy says it can when the only the form pertains to the spiritual. This is like night and day and you are still trying to amateurishly apply the mind of Aristotle.

Again, here is what you said...

Quote from: Troubled Teen
According to the thesis, a material pope is not matter for the papacy as material sin is matter for sin or bread and wine are matter for the Blessed Sacrament (in fact, Bp. Guérard basically asserted the complete opposite by claiming that Paul VI and John Paul II could not have the form of the pontificate bestowed on them owing to their lack of an objective will to do the good of the Church); a material pope is a man who shows all the certain signs of having been validly elected but who remains a non-pope due to the absence of the internal conditions allegedly necessary to receive the form of the pontificate.

You just erroneously described the Thesis itself which shows you don't understand it. You said, "a material pope is not matter for the papacy". No, that is a contradiction. If a man is pope "materially" then he is "matter", that why the word "materially" is there. A blatant contradiction; you failed to even reason correctly.

Then you say, "the absence of the internal conditions allegedly necessary to receive the form".  This is not "alleged". This is Catholic teaching, that a person is not a Catholic without the Faith. The Faith being a part of the soul or "form" of the entity pope. Yes, it is a condition.





 

ubipetrus

Re: What I believe
« Reply #27 on: December 16, 2017, 11:30:22 AM »
Good timing - I read most of the second part of Sede Vacante! a few months ago and found some aspects surprisingly cogent.

Griff is to be commended for his honest grappling with some aspects of Catholic doctrine which "normal" sedevacantists tend to pass over, such as the indefectibility of the local Church of Rome and the corresponding infallibility of papal elections, but his proposed solutions still come up short. His central claim - that the wording of Lumen gentium created a new church which the Catholic Church merely "subsists in" - is utterly demolished by the fact that the words "subsistit in" were originally intended to have an orthodox meaning; furthermore, membership in an undeclared sect (and the Conciliar Church can be considered a de facto sect) does not ipso facto sever one from the Church without pertinacious heresy or schism, as Griff himself admits. I see no basis for claiming that the Council Fathers walked into the Council in full possession of their Catholic offices and walked out without them.

His idea that Lumen gentium granted episcopal jurisdiction to all bishops who are Catholic in faith does have some merit in my view, and might explain why Providence blessed the efforts of someone like Archbishop Lefebvre who was effectively exercising episcopal jurisdiction in dioceses all over the world. It could be likened to philosopher Thomas Pink's interesting thesis that Dignitatis humanae changed Church policy, not doctrine.

While I'd have to review the theological loci which Griff puts forward as proof of his hypothesis, I'm almost positive that the position which I've outlined here saves the appearances more satisfactorily than his does - in fact, I'm pretty darn convinced that it's true. Once again, I invite all theologically competent members to critique the ideas I've put forward and even send insults my way if they deem it necessary.
You really need to have read Volume ("Part") One first.  All the theorizing in the world would be nothing but spinning castles in the air unless solidly rooted in the established facts, in this case the established doctrinal facts demonstrated and verified in Part One.  Part One may seem to be covering "the basics," but as I have observed, even "the basics" seem to be poorly known, even among the trained clergy, and only all the more so among the laity, and for all that, some of these "basics" are actually rather advanced.  But all are worth knowing and all add richly to our understanding of our present circumstance, once properly applied today.  A good and solid rooting in these basics would go far towards protecting you from making so very many truly egregious (and at times bordering on ridiculous or absurd) errors.  In fact, probably go back and read it several times; get familiar with the general doctrinal landscape of the Church as set out by the classical theologians all before this whole Vatican II crisis and confusion arose.  Only then do you have any business looking at Part Two, which will then make a great deal more sense to you.

By the way, I never claimed that "the Council Fathers walked into the Council in full possession of their Catholic offices and walked out without them," or anything like it.  I have to wonder what in that volume could ever cause you to think I did.  If the Council Fathers had all walked out of that Council wholly lacking their Catholic offices then the Church itself would have truly vanished, and in Part One I establish that such a scenario is quite impossible.  Rather, they walked out with a new and additional office to that which they entered in with, in parallel to their Catholic office, but subject to a brand new hierarchy of these new "offices" not in any way subject to Catholic theology, history, law, or identity, all subject to the one lone man who DID so lose his former Catholic office (to whatever extent he could be said to have possessed it antecedently in the first place).  Now with two masters to serve, as the commands and demands of each of these respective "offices" diverged, individual men made their choices as to which they would serve, some few (such as Lefebvre, Thục, and de Castro-Meyer) serving that Master (Our Lord Jesus Christ) represented by their initial Catholic office, and the rest serving that new master (heresiarch Paul VI) represented by the new and parallel office freshly imparted to them.  Those who served in the new office thereby abandoned their former Catholic office (all of this AFTER this creation of a new office for them) once the demands of the new office fell into full conflict with the old, and it is a standard fact that an office abandoned over some period of time is properly seen as vacant.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2017, 11:58:57 AM by ubipetrus »
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 

2Vermont

Re: What I believe
« Reply #28 on: December 16, 2017, 11:38:12 AM »
I thought the necessary matter for pope was:  Catholic man.  Am I wrong?
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 
The following users thanked this post: Mithrandylan

ubipetrus

Re: What I believe
« Reply #29 on: December 16, 2017, 11:54:03 AM »
1) That Bp. Guérard did not come up with his thesis as a way of "saving" the perpetuity of apostolic succession is proven by his private conviction - I was able to confirm this with a priest who had worked at the St. Pius V chapel in Rennes, where many of the faithful had known Bp. Guérard - that John Paul II was not even a material pope and that material apostolic succession would probably cease in the Conciliar Church.
A rather fascinating tidbit of history if true.  I do know that Bp. Guérard had himself never ventured the notion that a mere "material" (but not formal) Pope could nevertheless appoint "real" cardinals capable of electing a real Pope; that development is properly attributed to Bp. McKenna and/or Sanborn.  Evidently, Bp. Guérard was hoping that whatever few truly faithful and papally-appointed cardinals as remained could one day regroup and organize a conclave to give the Church a true Pope.  Now that all of those fellows, to the very last man, have passed away, that prospect is categorically closed.  So either "the Thesis" is over and done with, or else it has to be extended in some manner, for example as done by Bp. McKenna and/or Sanborn.  I am a little confused by the claim that Bp. Guérard denied that John Paul II was even a material pope, in view of what follows:
Let me note in passing that in his "Cassiciacum papers", Bp. Guérard spends quite a bit of time demonstrating the validity and liceity of the 1963 and 1978 conclaves, demolishing any hope of "proving" sedevacantism by alleging that those conclaves were unlawful (there's some evidence of foul play in 1958, 1978 and 2013, but it's theologically inapplicable).
If the 1978 conclave was to be counted as valid and licit, then why was John Paul II not at least a material Pope?  Or was Bp. Guérard sufficiently concerned with validating the election of John Paul I (also in 1978)?
« Last Edit: December 16, 2017, 12:05:27 PM by ubipetrus »
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 
The following users thanked this post: Vinny Zee