Thesis of Cassiciacum

The Thesis of Cassiciacum is held by groups such as the Istituto Mater Boni Consilii and others, and holds that, while the current occupant of the papacy is a duly elected pope, he lacks the authority to either teach or govern unless he recants the changes brought by the Second Vatican Council.[1]

History

The English layman and sedevacantist apologist William J. Morgan developed the term "sedeprivationism" in order to distinguish it from sedevacantism, a position which he held himself.[2] He applied the term to one of the Catholic theological explanations for the traditionalist opposition to the conclusions of the Second Vatican Council. The traditionalists assert that the Novus Ordo popes have been defective popes. However, the term "sedeprivationism" is rejected by clergy adhering to the Thesis of Cassiciacum, owing to their belief not that there is a privation of the See, but rather, a privation of Authority.

The Thesis of Cassiciacum was formulated French Dominican theologian Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers, who said that John Paul II (like his conciliar predecessors) was "materially 'Pope' only"; that is, Karol Wojtyla was the valid electee of the October 1978 conclave. Although he never became Pope, he equally has never forfeited his canonical claim on the papacy. Guérard des Lauriers presented his thesis in a publication with the title Cahiers de Cassiciacum (commonly known as the Cassiciacum Thesis) which states that the See of Peter is not obtained and must conform with one of two prescribed requirements of a legitimate papal election by the Novus Ordo popes. The two criteria are:

  1. That the pope is elected legitimately by valid designated electors. This aspect designates the papal candidate as materially[3] elected and designated candidate to the office of pope.
  2. That the newly chosen pope-elect expresses his acceptance and that on giving his assent he receive from Christ the form of the papacy i.e. the indefectible power or authority promised to Saint Peter and his successors by which the elected candidate formally becomes pope and actually takes hold of the office of the papacy.

The Thesis of Cassiciacum as held by the Istituto Mater Boni Consilii and others contends that both of these aspects are required and should any candidate fail in either one, he would be elected to the office of pope. Those Catholics adhering to the Thesis hold that all claimants of the papal office from at least Paul VI to Francis (the Novus Ordo popes) are invalid and that they do not hold the papal office except by right of designation due to a failure to receive the form of the papacy (i.e. the authority) because his acceptance is impeded by a defective intention[4] arising from their manifest disposition of apostasy.

Sede vacante (i.e. the seat being vacant) technically refers to the period between a papal death and a newly elected papal candidate. During the interim period, the period of time when the papal seat was vacant, the chamberlain, the Cardinal Camerlengo, administered the church in lieu of the pope. Sedevacantism is the notion of some Catholics that in this time of the Novus Ordo popes the state of the papacy is that of sede vacante. The Thesis of Cassiciacum seeks to clarify and distinguish between full, or total sedevacantism, a simple and complete vacancy, and the more complex current state of affairs in the Church wherein there is an elected successor to Peter though deprived of the reception of the authority of the office. The term sedeplenist may also be used to signify the minds of Catholics like the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) who believe the Novus Ordo popes are fully fledged popes and are truly in possession of the full authority promised by Christ to Saint Peter and his successors, yet have substantially erred in the teaching of the universal ordinary magisterium on matters of faith and morals. In their perspective they believe this kind of error is possible and has occurred, so they may lawfully recognize and resist the fully seated papal authority on the most essential matters which constitute a religion: doctrine, morals, liturgy, sacramental system, code of law, and nature of government.

Description

According to Guerard des Lauriers' thesis, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and (implicitly) Benedict XVI and Francis were or are defective popes in that, due to their espousal of modernism—which des Lauriers considers to be heresy—their consent to become pope was faulty or defective, so that they were legally designated to be pope yet became deprived of attaining full succession to the authority of Peter. Guerard des Lauriers' thesis holds that the Vatican II popes succeed as legal designees to the papacy and continue the line of Saint Peter materially, which means that the Vatican II Novus Ordo popes are legitimate designees to be true popes but not formally. As such, they lack jurisdictional authority because of the obstacle that they posit to the reception of the authority. They are not the authority, true popes, or true bishops, but are legally in the position to become true popes and bishops if they should remove the obstacle to the reception of the authority of the office.[5]

Donald Sanborn writes:

Because the power of designation to office pertains to the purely legal and material side of authority, the Novus Ordites possess the power to legitimately designate to positions of power, until such time as this power is legally removed from them.

As a result, there is a material hierarchy in place, i.e., someone legally nominated to be a pope, and others legally nominated to be bishops, and others legally nominated to be electors of popes, but none of these has any jurisdiction, and obedience is owed to none of them. Because they lack the authority, which is the form which makes them to be what they are, Ratzinger is a false pope and the bishops are false bishops. The cardinals are true electors, to the extent that they are legally nominated to be designators of the pope. But their role pertains to the material order of authority, the order of designation only.[6]

Corollaries
  1. There is no real sede vacante state in the Novus Ordo popes since a man fills the role of potential pope;
  2. If the current potential pope recants from modernism and returns to Catholicism, he will complete the process and attain to the fullness of the papacy – all else being equal.
  3. Arguably, the feud between those who say the Chair of Saint Peter is totally empty (sedevacantists) and those who say it is totally full (sedeplenist, e.g. SSPX) can come to an end as the answer is neither of these two explanations as they compromise either the perpetuity of succession or the doctrine of indefectibility and infallibility.

See also
  • Category:Sedeprivationists

References
  1. "Who We Are", Istituto Mater Boni Consilii
  2. "A few ... hold the view of the late Dominican theologian, Mgr Guérard des Lauriers, that John Paul II (like his Conciliar predecessors) is 'materially "Pope" only'. That is, that Karol Wojtyla is the valid electee of the October 1978 conclave, though he has never actually become Pope, but, equally, has never forfeited his canonical claim on the Papacy. — Such sedeprivationists ..." “Morgan’s document”
  3. "Through an impediment of the moral order, however, they cannot receive papal power who posit a certain moral obstacle, both voluntary and removable, for example, the refusal of episcopal consecration, or the intention of teaching errors or of promulgating harmful general disciplines, or the refusal of baptism in the case of the election of a catechumen (for example, Ambrose, elected to the episcopal see of Milan) These are capable of a valid designation because the impediment is removable, but the authority cannot be infused by God until the impediment is removed. The reason is that they are not capable of promoting the common good to the extent that they do not remove the obstacle. And because the impediment is moral and voluntary, the obstacle is reduced to an absence of the intention of promoting the common good. God, therefore, who is Subsistent Good, is not able to infuse power in him who posits a voluntary impediment toward the promotion of the common good.""The material Papacy – Sodalitium". www.sodalitiumpianum.com (in Italian). Retrieved 7 March 2018.
  4. "...Through an impediment of the moral order, however, they cannot receive papal power who posit a certain moral obstacle, both voluntary and removable, for example, the refusal of episcopal consecration, or the intention of teaching errors or of promulgating harmful general disciplines,...because the impediment is moral and voluntary, the obstacle is reduced to an absence of the intention of promoting the common good. God, therefore, who is Subsistent Good, is not able to infuse power in him who posits a voluntary impediment toward the promotion of the common good.""The material Papacy – Sodalitium". www.sodalitiumpianum.com (in Italian). Retrieved 7 March 2018.
  5. Cf. Ab. Lefebvre : "Letter to future Bishops," wherein he either wittingly or unwittingly implies a similar distinction, in that the Novus Ordo occupants of the posts of authority in Rome by their elected presence qualifies them to some claim of succession yet are functionally defective to such an extent that one is obliged in conscience to refuse subjection to them on most essential matters. He just never identified precisely in what that substantial defect consists but clearly here believes they are absent of the Indefectible power inherent with the Office. He knew he had to protect Perpetual Succession and at the same time condemned them to be so defective as to make them antichrists.”
  6. Explanation of the Thesis

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.