"The Cassiciacum thesis is fundamentally fallacious"
FLIES IN A FLY BOTTLE. By W.J. Morgan.
Whitsun. 1995 (Counter-Reformation Association, News & Views)
The task of Philosophy, claimed the philosopher Wittgenstein, is “to show the way out of the fly-bottle”. It can hardly be denied that highly intelligent thinkers do sometimes manage to trap themselves in elaborate but fallacious theories. Like flies which, having been enticed into a bottle by some bait, cannot then get out because they will not leave the light which comes to them through the imprisoning glass; so some thinkers ( theological as well as philosophical) refuse to abandon sophistries because of the truths they imagine they have reached within their systems.
At the present time, the sedeprivationist theory is especially apt for the description as a theological “fly-bottle”. It was first elaborated by the late Dominican theologian Guerard des Lauriers, in his “Cahiers de Cassiciacum”. It is currently notably accepted by priests of the Italian Institute of Our Lady of Good Counsel, by the veteran French polemicist ( and former sedevacantist) Pere Noel Barbara, and by the American Mgr. Robert McKenna O,P. (of the Thuc-Guerard line).
The sedeprivationist thesis is that John Paul II (like his Conciliar predecessors) is “materially” ‘Pope’ only”, not Pope in theological reality (“Pope formally”). By that is meant that Mgr. Wojtyla is the valid electee of the October 1978 conclave, but he has not actually become Pope because of a defect in his putative consent to the papal office.
It is essential to understand that, by “materially ‘Pope’ only”, the sedeprivationist thesis does not mean – what is obvious – that Karol Wojtyla is in de facto possession of the Holy See as a successful usurper; one who is generally recognized as Pope in spite of not being such in theological reality. No, the thesis contends that he enjoys the status of one who has been validly elected, but who has not, as yet at least, actually become Pope.
For example, Cardinal Pacelli was materially “Pope” only, for a few minutes between being elected at the 1939 conclave and actually accepting the papal office, so becoming Pope as Pius XII. Equally, Teobaldo of Ostia, for instance, was also materially “ Pope” only, for the short time between his election and his declining the papal office ( so never becoming Pope), in the conclave which went on to elect Cardinal Scolari as Clement III. The latter is an important example because it reminds us that a valid electee (materially “Pope” only), may decline the papal office. In that case not only does he not become Pope (“formally Pope”), he ceases to be “materially “Pope” only.
The Cassiciacum thesis is fundamentally fallacious, because there is no good reason to accept that Karol Wojtyla was ever the valid electee of a valid conclave; and also because the claim that we know that he is not actually Pope, but do not know that he is not materially “Pope” only, is inconsistent and invalid.
The October 1978 conclave was invalid for (at least) two reasons. All those taking part had publicly defected from the Catholic faith, in virtue of their notorious acceptance of the anti-Catholic Conciliar Reform (including the anti-Tridentine New Mass); and so had forfeited any ecclesiastical offices, including that of cardinal, which they may formerly have held as Catholics (cf Canon 188). It is also certain that the electors had no intention of electing a Catholic Pope – one, that is, who would condemn the anti-Catholic Reform – but rather a “Conciliar Pope”, who would safeguard and continue it. That is the first way for the sedeprivationist flies to leave the fly-bottle. They simply need to pause and recognise that the October 1978 neither could nor intended to elect a (Catholic) Pope, and so neither could nor did chose a material “Pope”.
Equally, Karol Wojtyla, in view of his notorious commitment to the anti-Catholic Conciliar Reform (including the anti-Tridentine New Mass), was manifestly a heresy-favouring schismatic; and this ineligible for election to the Papacy (cf Pope Paul IV’s Bull “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”). As ineligible for election, Karol Wojtyla could not have become materially “Pope”, even if the conclave had otherwise been Catholic. That is another way for the sedeprivationists to leave the fly-bottle. They only need to stop and appreciate that Karol Wojtyla was ineligible for election to the Papacy, and therefore invalid matter for that office.
With only a little more reasoning, we can show the sedeprivationist flies the intrinsic inconsistency of their position. Guerard des Lauriers precisely claimed that he knew that Karol Wojtyla nd his Conciliar predecessors were not actually Popes (only materially such). He was therefore obliged to hold that he knew that the “Conciliar Popes” had either withdrawn their consent to their valid elections, or else had never given their real consent.
But that entails that they had either tacitly abdicated (by withdrawing their consent); or else they had tacitly refused the papal office (by never giving their real consent). On the one hypothesis they had ceased to be Popes absolutely; on the other they had never become Popes, and – crucially – had ceased to be materially “Popes”. Guerard des Lauriers claim, therefore, is inconsistent and invalid. The flies are free to leave the Cassiciacum fly-bottle!
