Catholicmessage.org

A Theological Error or Savors of Heresy?

Here I would like to share some thoughts on the video recorded on November 15, 2021, by the Rector of the Most Holy Trinity Seminary, Bishop Donald Sanborn. He stated that Bishop Daniel Dolan accused him and all of the clergy of the Seminary and all of the Roman Catholic Institute of being adherents of the Novus Ordo who are really doing the work of the Novus Ordo.

I find it to be one of the best commentaries which I found on the so-called Facebook Sedevacantist Society:

"Both R&R and Cassiacum share: the novus ordo institution is the legal structure of the Catholic Church. That's untenable"

After such commentary nothing can be said. However I will try to say something.

While commenting I will not mention the names of certain persons. I will use the phrase “someone told me”, as Bishop Sanborn did in his video.

Also, I have to clarify that the thesis of Bishop Gerard des Lauriers or “The Thesis of Cassiciacum” is not infallible teaching proposed by the Church for belief, but a very controversial private theological opinion, and Catholics are not obliged to believe in it. Therefore, it is not a sin at all to disagree with the “Thesis” saying that it is a “theological error”, or even “savors of heresy”.

That is also not “a severe accusation”, as Bishop Sanborn says in his video, but expressing of serious concern about the harmfulness of the "Thesis". And this is not "war", as some people say. This is just an opinion exchange, nothing more, I guess.

Under Pope Pius XII, Fr. Guerard des Lauriers served as a professor at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome, and some time prior to 1950, he was an advisor to the Pope on the Dogma of the Assumption of Our Lady proclaimed in the Apostolic Constitution "Munificentissimus Deus" on November 1, 1950. However it does not mean that Bp. Guerard des Lauriers’s private opinion is infallible and must be humbly accepted under pain of excommunication.

In his video, Bishop Sanborn referred to this part of the Sunday Bulletin published by Bishop Dolan in The Bishop’s Corner on November 14, 2021:

“Friday’s St. Martin I suffered exile and a miserable death rather than accept the heresy of only one will in Christ. It sounds obscure to most, doubtless, but we must hold the whole Catholic Faith without compromise. Even the best today want to make us believe that bad though he be, Bergoglio is the validly elected pope, and that the Novus Ordo, One World Church, is identical with the Catholic Church. That’s a theological error, and savors of heresy.”

Bishop Dolan neither mentioned the name of Bishop Sanborn nor names of the clergy of the Most Holy Trinity Seminary or his “Roman Catholic Institute”. However, on the very next day Bishop Sanborn recorded the video “to say something regarding this criticism lashing out against” him and all of the clergy of the Seminary and the “Roman Catholic Institute”.

However, if the "Thesis" was meant, is it forbidden to have a different opinion about it?

Bishop Sanborn:

“Let me give you first of all correct what he says. That Thesis of Gerard de Laurier does not say that Bergoglio is validly elected pope. That’s false. It’s false accusation. We say, thesis says that he is validly elected and he is therefore a pope-elect, but he is not the pope. He is not a validly elected pope. Pope could never be said of him, for as long as he is promulgating heresy.”

My comment:

According to Vatican, Bergoglio is a validly elected pope Francis, who possesses fullness of jurisdiction over the Catholic Church.

According to Bishop Sanborn, Bergoglio is a validly elected pope-elect Francis, who possesses power to appoint cardinals who have power to elect a new pope after Bergoglio’s death at a new Conclave.

Also, let us see what Bishop Sanborn had written in his article of June 29th, 2002. If you read carefully, you can see that, actually, he is attacking the Catholic Doctrine and clergy (he calls them "totalists) who disagree with the false “Thesis”.

EXPLANATION OF THE THESIS OF BISHOP GUÉRARD DES LAURIERS:

“Q. But how could heretical cardinals have the jurisdiction to select a pope, when they too are guilty of defection from the faith?
A. They do not have jurisdiction. The right to vote (the power of designation) is not the power to rule (jurisdiction). Furthermore, their defection from the Faith is an obstacle to jurisdiction, but not to the election of a pope."

That’s not true, because the power of designation IS the power to rule (jurisdiction). Since heretics don’t have the power to rule (jurisdiction), they don’t have the power to elect a pope.

Rev. Peter A. Baart explains on the creation of the Cardinals that the whole substance of the Cardinalate consists in the power of jurisdiction and its consequent prerogatives:

“46. For the creation of a cardinal all that is required is the will of the Sovereign Pontiff sufficiently expressed. Neither a certain form nor any special ceremony is essential, because the whole substance of the cardinalate consists in the power of jurisdiction, and its consequent prerogatives, which depends simply on the will of the superior. The cardinalate is not, like the priesthood, a sacrament imprinting a character and requiring sacramental matter and form divinely instituted; and hence the unanimous teaching is that the form of promoting a cardinal depends entirely on the will and word of the Supreme Pontiff."
(The Roman Court, OR A Treatise on the Cardinals, Roman Congregations and Tribunals, Legates, Apostolic Vicars, Protonotaries, and Other Prelates of the Holy Roman Church, BY THE Reverend Peter A. Baart, S. T. L., Author of "Orphans and Orphan Asylums," and "Episcopal Claims Disproved", FR. PUSTET, Printer to the Holy See and the S. Congregation of Rites, FR. PUSTET & CO., NEW YORK AND CINCINATI. Nihil Obstat: Carolus O'Reilly, S. T. D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: Joannes S. Foley, Episcopus Detroitensis, Die 25, m. Septembris, 1895, Press of The Statesman, Marshall, Mich. p. 42)

Where is it said about “heretical cardinals”?

Bishop Sanborn continues:

That’s not true either. “Phony cardinals” or “heretical cardinals” are not Catholic terms, and they cannot elect Pope

The Church teaches that the Pope has the sole power of appointment to the Cardinalate:

“The Sovereign Pontiff has the sole and free power of appointment to the cardinalate”
(ELEMENTS OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, COMPILED WITH REFERENCE TO THE SYLLABUS, THE "CONST. APOSTOLICAE SEDIS" OF POPE PIUS IX, THE COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN AND THE LATEST DECISIONS OF THE ROMAN CONGREGATIONS, BY REV. S. B. SMITH. D.D., BENZIGER BROTHERS, 1881, Nihil Obstat: Rev. S. G. MESSMER, S.T.P., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: JOANNES CARD. McCLOSKEY, Archiepiscopus Neo-Eboracensis, Datum Neo-Eboraci, Die 25 Martii, 1877, p. 234)

The Church also teaches that electing a new Pope, Cardinals (not “phony or heretical cardinals”) exercise the power of jurisdiction:

"493. - I. Dignity and Rights of Cardinals. - The cardinalate is, after the Papal, the highest dignity in the Church. Being the electors of the Sovereign Pontiff sede vacante, and his counsellors sede plena, the cardinals take precedence of even patriarchs, metropolitans, and primates. The reason is that priority of rank is regulated, not by the ordo, but by one's office and jurisdictio. Now, cardinals have greater jurisdictio than bishops; for, together with the Pope, they have charge, not of one diocese each, as other bishops, but of all the dioceses of the Catholic world. Cardinals are, moreover, Roman princes - nay, are considered princes of the blood."
(ELEMENTS OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, COMPILED WITH REFERENCE TO THE SYLLABUS, THE "CONST. APOSTOLICAE SEDIS" OF POPE PIUS IX, THE COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN AND THE LATEST DECISIONS OF THE ROMAN CONGREGATIONS, BY REV. S. B. SMITH. D.D., BENZIGER BROTHERS, 1881, Nihil Obstat: Rev. S. G. MESSMER, S.T.P., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: JOANNES CARD. McCLOSKEY, Archiepiscopus Neo-Eboracensis, Datum Neo-Eboraci, Die 25 Martii, 1877, pp.236-237)

Also, all Papal Constitutions on the election emphasize that while electing a Pope at the Conclave, Cardinals exercise jurisdiction.

When Bishop Sanborn says “Pope could never be said of him, for as long as he is promulgating heresy”, he means that Bergoglio can become a valid pope even many years after a conclave is closed. The only thing which is required of him is to stop preaching heresy and start preaching the Catholic Faith. But the Catholic Church never taught that way.

The Church teaches: As soon as the Pope is canonically elected, he becomes immediately, upon consenting to the election, the Vicar of Christ on earth (Canon 219, see PS):

"As soon as the Pope is canonically elected, that is according to the established rules, and as soon as he has given his consent to his election, he has, without any other confirmation, obtained authority over the universal Church, even if he had previously been neither bishop, priest, deacon, nor sub-deacon, but only a simple layman. From the time of his election he is empowered with all the prerogatives of jurisdiction, as, for instance, to grant dispensations, canonize, promulgate censures, grant indulgences, institute bishops, create cardinals, and decide controversies in regard to faith and morals." p. 400
"The person thus elected, even though not yet in sacred orders, becomes immediately, upon the consenting to the election, the Vicar of Christ on earth." p. 566-567
(Ecclesiastical Dictionary, by RE V. JOHN THEIN, Priest of the Diocese of Cleveland, New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, BENZIGER BROTHERS, Printers to the Holy Apostolic See, 1900, Imprimatur: +MICHAEL AUGUSTINE, Archbishop of New York, New York, March 21, 1900, Nihil Obstat: +IGN. F. HORSTMANN, Bishop of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio, March 9, 1900, p. 400, p. 566-567)

Hence, Bishop Sanborn cannot say that after closure of a conclave Bergoglio is not a validly elected pope, since a conclave is closed only if a POPE is elected.

But if you say that Bergoglio is not a validly elected pope, you should agree that a conclave is not yet closed, and must go on until a valid pope is elected.

Bishop Sanborn:

“Then he says that we say that the Novus Ordo, One World Church, is identical with the Catholic Church. We do not say that. That false, it is false accusation. We do not say that. For we saying this that these heretics in the hierarchy are, unfortunately, in possession of the, what we call the material side of the Church, which is organizational side. It is something like thugs who have stolen your car or hijackers who have hijacked the plane. They are using the very structures of the Church in order to promote the heresy.”

“Therefore we are not saying that the Novus Ordo church is the same as the Catholic Church. It is matter of fact. We do not admit the term “Novus Ordo church”, because they, the Novus Ordo heretics did not found their own church; they attempting to use the structure of the Church for their own purpose, that is ultimately to destroy it.”

My comment:

An owner of a car could lend it to someone else to drive. That driver would then possess the car legally. However, the owner does not give up ownership simply by lending the car to someone else.

Though heretics may actually possess the material side of the Church, i.e., church buildings, lands etc, however they possess them illegally. The Church did not lend the material side of the Church to heretics, but they have stolen it, and, therefore, are guilty of criminal possession of stolen property. They have no right to use it (to drive).

The fact of criminal possession of stolen property does not make a thug a "legal possessor".

Bishop Sanborn's "Roman Catholic Institute" says that “the members of the Novus Ordo hierarchy constitute the Catholic hierarchy only materially” (see below).

But this thesis is false, since in order to constitute the Catholic hierarchy materially, it is required to act in a legal way, and not in an illegal way.

Heretics cannot constitute a Catholic hierarchy even materially, since they act in an illegal, criminal way.

As thugs cannot constitute the owner of the car materially, so public heretics cannot constitute the Catholic hierarchy materially.

It is also wrong to say that “heretics in hierarchy are in possession of the material side of the Church, which is organizational side.”

Yes, heretics may possess the material side of the Church, i.e., church buildings, lands etc. But they are NOT in possession of the organizational side of the Church, i.e. offices which are not material but spiritual side of the Church.

Ecclesia, ἐκκλησία is spiritual edifice, the term by which the holy writers of the New Testament denote the Society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Even though heretics can possess the material side of the Church, i.e., church buildings, lands etc, they cannot possess the organizational side (offices) of the Church, because they are excluded ipso facto from the Society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

THE MOST REV. DR. MacEvilly ARCHBISHOP OF TUAM explains that the Church is spiritual edifice, spiritual building, Kingdom founded by Christ:

"I shall build My Church," this spiritual edifice, which is to successfully resist every hostile assault, and subsist to the end of time…. "I shall build." There is question, of course, of a spiritual building.
"And the gates of hell shall not prevail."...The words would mean, in this interpretation, that all the powers of hell, all the strength of persecuting tyrants, all the blandishments of pleasures, all the errors of heretics, or whatever other means of defence Satan may employ, shall not be able to withstand the strength and assaults of the Church, or kingdom founded by Christ."
(AN EXPOSITION THE GOSPELS, CONSISITING OF AN ANALYSIS OF EACH CHAPTER AND OF A COMMENTARY CRITICAL, EXEGETICAL, DOCTRINAL, AND MORAL, BY HIS GRACE THE MOST REV. DR. MacEvilly ARCHBISHOP OF TUAM, FOURTH EDITION, REVISED AND CORRECTED, DUBLIN: M. H. GILL & SON, 50 UPPER O'CONNELL STREET, NEW YORK: BENZIGER BROTHERS, 113 BROADWAY, 1808, pp. 293, 294)

"The gates of hell, &c...By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ."
(HOLY BIBLE, Douay Version of the Old Testament of 1609, and with the Rhemish Version of the New Testament of 1582, Published by JAMES DUFFY, 7, Wellington-quay, Dublin, MDCCCLVII. PUBLISHED WITH THE APPROBATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOPS & BISHOPS OF IRELAND APPROBATION Given at Dublin, this 4th day of May, 1857)

Therefore, it is contrary to the Holy Scripture to say that "heretics in hierarchy are in possession of the organizational side of the Church."

Bishop Sanborn:

“By the way did you know that Nestorius was a public heretic and on a Christmas Day 428 he was Patriarch of Constantinople . When he came to be judged in 431 in the Council of Ephesus, he was given all of the honors of being the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Archbishop of Constantinople. He was not until he was judged and sentenced that he was stripped of that honor. That’s an example of the difference between being separated from the Church in the eyes of God in a spiritual way - anyone who is public heretic is separated from the Church in that way – and being separated from the Church in a legal way. And those who think are distinct, because you are separated from the Church inside and in the eyes of God by your heresy and because you have of effects of Baptism by heresy, does it mean an automatically you excluded from the organizational aspect of the Church. Why was it necessary for example that Pope Pius V excommunicated Elizabeth I? Because she was organizationally a Catholic, she was still considered baptized Catholic, she had never been kicked out. And she needed to be kicked out. And did over the of objections of many clergy, because it was a scandal that she could go on for so long, supposedly being a Catholic in a legal sense a Catholic and at the same time repudiating the Catholic Faith. But nonetheless he did it because it had to be done. Those are examples of the Thesis.

And the same is true if the Novus Ordo is a different church, as you say, and Novus Ordo church is the same as the Lutheran church or Episcopalian church, then you need to do those abjurations. But you can’t do that because you also are excommunicated.”

My comment: From the above it is quite clear that Bishop Sanborn does not consider Novus Ordo to be a different church, because - according to him - neither Novus Ordo bishops, nor priests nor laymen were legally excommunicated and, therefore, should not make abjuration of heresy.

However, please read paragraph 8 of PASTORAL DIRECTORY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC INSTITUTE and you will see that they require people from Novus Ordo to manifest their resolve to utterly repudiate Vatican II and its reforms:

“8. Those who are returning from the Novus Ordo to the beliefs and practices of Roman Catholicism may not receive sacraments until (1) they manifest their resolve to utterly repudiate Vatican II and its reforms, (2) it is determined that they are sufficiently instructed in the Catholic Faith, and (3) are free from any impediments to receiving the sacraments, particularly invalid marriages and cohabitation, or any other public sin.”

The paragraphs 24-28 are interesting as well:

“VIII. Sacraments to Be Conferred Again Absolutely or Sub Conditione
24. As a general rule, no sacrament should be repeated sub conditione except where there is a positive doubt concerning its validity.
25. Ordinations to the priesthood conferred in English or Latin according to the reformed rite in use in the Novus Ordo during or after 1968, are considered doubtful.
26. Consecrations to the episcopacy performed according to the reformed rite of consecration during or after 1968 are considered invalid.
27. Confirmations conferred in English or Latin according to the reformed rite during or after 1971 are considered doubtful.
28. Baptisms conferred by Novus Ordo clergy during or after 1990 must be verified as having been done correctly. If positive proof of the correctness of the rite should be lacking, then the baptism must be conferred again sub conditione.”

Also in the THEOLOGICAL DIRECTORY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC INSTITUTE (“RCI”), is a profession, which must be signed by those clergy who want to join RCI.

All members of RCI are obliged to believe that Vatican II is “an entirely new religion, a dogma-less religion of humanity, which differs essentially from Roman Catholicism”:

“I hold that the Second Vatican Council and its reforms constitute an entirely new religion, a dogma-less religion of humanity, which differs essentially from Roman Catholicism.”

But in the beginning of that THEOLOGICAL DIRECTORY every member of RCI is obliged to believe this:

“I furthermore hold that the members of the Novus Ordo hierarchy constitute the Catholic hierarchy only materially”

I wonder, how can members of “an entirely new religion, a dogma-less religion of humanity, which differs essentially from Roman Catholicism”…“constitute the Catholic hierarchy materially”?

According to the PASTORAL DIRECTORY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC INSTITUTE, priests of the Institute must require people who came from Novus Ordo “to manifest their resolve to utterly repudiate Vatican II and its reforms”. But in the video-response to Bishop Dolan, Bishop Sanborn says that members of this entirely new religion should not make abjuration of heresy.

Such self-contradictory statements are unacceptable to Catholic shepherds. Clergy of the "Roman Catholic Institute" must decide for themselves once and for all: Novus Ordo is a new religion that must be utterly repudiated; or it is a part of the Catholic Church, and therefore, members of Novus Ordo should be considered as Catholics who are a little bit wrong and should not “utterly repudiate Vatican II and its reforms”.

It’s true that anyone who is a public heretic is separated from the Church in the eyes of God in a spiritual way, according to Divine Law.

But he also is separated from the Church in a legal way, according to the Code of Canon Law (human law) of 1917, Can. 2314, Paragraph 1, 1 “All apostates from the Christian faith and all heretics and schismatics: Incur excommunication ipso facto.”

“The censure inflicted is excommunication incurred ipso facto, which per se requires not even a declaratory sentence. The bonum publicum certainly demands it in the case of clergymen.”
(A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW By THE REV. P. CHAS. AUGUSTINE, O.S.B., D.D. Professor of Canon Law, VOLUME VIII, BOOK V, p. 278)

A few words about Bishop Sanborn’s questions addressed to Bishop Dolan about reception of converts from heresy into the Church.

I think during the Vacancy of the Holy See, Catholic bishops and priests may act according to Canons 2250 and 2251.

The formula of absolution from excommunication, although distinct as to the two forums (sacramental, in the internal forum and non-sacramental, in the external forum), does not touch the effects of absolution in either.

According to Canon 2250, if absolution is to be given from excommunication, the formula prescribed in the Roman Ritual (or Pontifical) should, as a rule, be employed. Regulariter, therefore, admits a departure from the general rule, and in urgent cases the confessional or even the abbreviated formula may be used.

There is also in the Ritual a formula for absolving a person who has been under excommunication, but has given signs of repentance before dying. The purpose of this absolution, as is evident from the same Ritual, consists in permitting ecclesiastical burial. Absolution from censures may be imparted validly in any form, written or oral, nor is it required that the party be personally present; even absent and unwilling persons may be absolved.

According to Canon 2251, if the absolution was given in foro interno, the person thus absolved may conduct himself as one absolved or freed from censure also concerning acts of the external forum, provided the scandal has been removed. Also, if absolution was given privately only, the superiors of the external forum, before whom the censured person is bound to appear, may insist upon the censure until absolution is given in the external forum, unless evidence is furnished that absolution was granted, or may be lawfully presumed, for the external forum.

During the Vacancy of the Holy See, Catholic bishops and priests may absolve penitents from censures in sacramental, internal forum.

Also, according to Canon 882, in danger of death any priest, even though not otherwise approved for hearing confessions, may validly and licitly absolve any penitent from whatever sins and censures, including those which are reserved and notorious.

Can. 882: "When there is danger of death, any priest, even though not otherwise approved for hearing confessions, may validly and licitly absolve any penitent from whatever sins and censures, including those which are reserved and notorious, even though an approved priest may be present. But the rules laid down in can. 884 and 2252 must be observed."

Can. 884 speaks about absolution of an accomplice. Can. 2252 speaks about duties of a penitent who in danger of death was absolved from certain censures, and then remained alive. This Canon “works” Sede Plena.

Bishop Sanborn:

“I take a little background on that I have with Bishop Dolan. I known him since January of 1973, in January 49 years for knowing each other…Later in 1995, after his Consecration he and Father Cekada proposed to me, asked me to form a seminary, even though I just had written articles on the Thesis and published them in a little magazine and we called it “Sacerdotium”. Already I was professing this theory and this explanation of the situation in the Church which is commonly called “The thesis of Bishop Gerard the Laurier”.”

My comment:

As far as I know the “Thesis” has not been officially studied in the Seminary for 25 years. But “someone told me” that after Father Cekada’s death, the “Thesis” is officially studied at the Seminary, and is required material for examination. Every seminarian should take the course of the Ecclesia, and in it to learn the “Thesis” as part of an integral formation.

Why has this “Thesis” not been officially studied at the Seminary while Father Cekada was one of the professors of the Seminary? And why did this "Thesis" become a part of the Seminary course after Father Cekada’s death?

If this "Thesis" is actually included in the Seminary course, why is there no announcement on the Seminary's website? Shouldn't candidates be aware of it? Before entering the Seminary candidates should know what the Seminary believes in.

Bishop Sanborn:

“So, I would ask Bishop Dolan to quit making trouble, to stop lashing out the fellow priests. We had peace for 25 years since I opened the Seminary. You came down for retreats all the time. And Father Cekada came down once a month. We were all at peace. And the lay people were so happy to see us at peace. And you make all kinds of trouble. And I don’t understand why are you making trouble, and I wish you would stop.”

My comment:

It seems that those who disagree with the "Thesis" have only one option: “to quit making trouble”.

I wonder, why any serious disagreement with a very controversial private theological opinion which has never been approved by the Church is considered as an attack on the dogma, or “lashing out the fellow priests”?

If it is true that the Faculty of the Most Holy Trinity Seminary do officially teach seminarians that "a heretical pope-elect is a material successor of St. Peter”, and that the “purpose of this heretical pope-elect is to destroy the Church”, and "phony and heretical cardinals possess the power to legitimately elect a heretical pope-elect at a Catholic Conclave", it is the real trouble.

In the article "EXPLANATION OF THE THESIS OF BISHOP GUÉRARD DES LAURIERS" of June 29th, 2002, Bishop Sanborn wrote this:

“In the totalist system, a private revelation would reveal the identity of the pope. It is needless to say that such a solution destroys the visibility of the Catholic Church, and well as its legality, and makes the very existence of the Catholic Church dependent on seers. It is also needless to say that it opens the papacy to the lunatical world of apparitionists."

"The totalist theory ruins the apostolicity of the Church".

Using the terms “totalist theory” and “totalist system”, Bishop Sanborn means Traditional Catholic clergy who disagree with the “Thesis”.

Are those accusations not severe? “Destroys the visibility of the Catholic Church, and well as its legality”, “makes the very existence of the Catholic Church dependent on seers”, “opens the papacy to the lunatical world of apparitionists”.

Nevertheless, no one - whom His Excellency calls “totalists” – neither reacted, nor took offense, since no certain names were mentioned.

As far as I know, neither Bishop Dolan nor Father Cekada said that the appointment of a new Pope would take place at the behest of some "seer".

A possibility of a direct intervention of Divine Providence (which is not a private revelation) is not a dogma, but only a meditation about such a possibility

Therefore, what Bishop Sanborn attributes to Bishops and priests who disagree with the “Thesis of Cassiciacum” is not true.

So, what really is the “Thesis”? Is this a "Theological Error" or "Savors of Heresy"?

The thesis of Bishop Gerard des Lauriers is a new, private theory, not approved by the Church, and, therefore, cannot be imposed upon Catholics.

The "Thesis" proposes to achieve the good end (election of a Pope) by means of the evil act (election of a public heretic by public heretics).

Therefore, no matter what you call the “Thesis”: “a theological error” or “savors of heresy”, the “Thesis” is at least false. Personally I think the "Thesis of Cassiciacum" is savors of heresy.

Fr. V

PS.

The Code of Canon Law, Canon 219:

"Romanus Pontifex, legitime electus, statim ab acceptata electione, obtinet, iure divino, plenam supremae iurisdictionis potestatem."

“The Roman Pontiff, legitimately elected, immediately upon accepting the election, obtains by divine law the full power of supreme jurisdiction.”

PPS.

A GENERAL HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
By M. L'ABBE J. E. DARRAS:

"The East seemed to be marked out as the common birthplace of the great heresiarchs of the fourth and fifth centuries; its great see, Constantinople, was now filled by a bishop soon to give his name to a new error against the Catholic faith. This was Nestorius, who had been made bishop in A. D. 427. The heresiarch was proud, superficial, with great pretensions to depth, and bombastic rather than eloquent. He divided Jesus Christ into two persons: one, the person of the man, Jesus Christ; the other, the person of God, the Word. Whence it followed that Jesus was not God, but a man united to God in a more special and intimate manner than any other. Then, by logical consequence, the Blessed Virgin was not the mother of God, but only the mother of a man called the Christ, to whom the Word had united Himself. This doctrine thus destroyed the mystery of the Incarnation, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the divine maternity of the Blessed Virgin. The heresy made its first appearance in a sermon preached on Christmas-day (A. D. 428), in which Nestorius said, "that to call the Virgin the mother of God, Θεοτόκος, would justify the pagan folly of giving mothers to their gods". These blasphemies shocked the Catholic mind of Constantinople; but the patriarch gave no heed to the public feeling, and encouraged his priests to spread the doctrine. Dorotheus, bishop of Marcianopolis, who had taken up his error, preaching one day before Nestorius, in the church of St. Sophia, pushed his blasphemous impiety so far as to utter the words: "If any one saith that Mary is the mother of God, let him be anathema". At these words the people, with a loud cry of indignation, rushed from the church. All the East was moved at the report of this scandal. When it came to the ears of St. Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, he at once wrote to the solitaries a letter, which forms a complete treatise against Nestorianism. The matter wras brought before St. Celestin by St. Cyril, and even by Nestorius himself. The Sovereign Pontiff was alarmed at the spread of the impious doctrine, and called upon Cassian to meet it; the acquittance of the charge was the Treatise on the Incarnation, in which the Catholic faith is nobly vindicated. Still, Nestorius never ceased to preach his error under the favor and protection of the court of Constantinople. St. Cyril of Alexandria, worthy successor of the great St. Athanasius, redoubled his zeal and energy in defense of the truth. He wrote to the emperor and his sisters in the most eloquent strain, showing the doctrine of the Church on the Incarnation, and upholding it by Scripture and tradition; he meanwhile sent to the pope a general view of the state of the question. St. Celestin at once called a council at Rome, in which Nestorius was anathematized. The pope communicated this decision to St. Cyril, and directed him to excommunicate the heresiarch if he refused to submit. The words of the pontiff on this occasion are worthy of note: "By the authority of the Holy See, and acting in our stead with the power granted to us, you will execute the sentence with exemplary severity." In obedience to the pope s instructions, St. Cyril called a council of the Egyptian bishops, and drew up twelve anathemas against each point of Nestorius's errors; these he sent to the heresiarch, with the injunction, according to St. Celestin's letter, to sign them (A.D. 430). Nestorius refused, and proposed to change the word Θεοτόκος (mother of God) to Χριστοτόκος (mother of Christ). The discussion grew in bitterness. Andrew of Samosata and Theodoret of Cyrrhus wrote a tract against the twelve anathemas, whilst Marius Mercator defended them in a very spirited and learned work. Meanwhile, St. Cyril himself was not idle; he successively published his Reply to Andrew of Samosata, the Apology against Theodoret, and a Refutation of the Sermons of Nestorius. Nestorius adopted the artifice common to heretics of all times - he appealed from the pope to an ecumenical council. His patron, Theodosius the Younger, wished to grant him this satisfaction. The third general council was therefore appointed for the month of June, A. D. 431, to meet at Ephesus. St. Cyril presided as Papal Legate. The session was opened with great solemnity. Two hundred bishops were present in the great church of Ephesus; on a golden throne in their midst they had placed the book of the Gospels, to represent the assistance of Jesus Christ, Who has promised to be with the pastors gathered together in His name. Nestorius had come to Ephesus escorted by an armed troop; but he refused to appear in the council. The Fathers thrice summoned him to attend the meetings; their messengers were always turned away by the guard about the house in which the heresiarch kept himself shut up. The council was thus forced to proceed, in the absence of the Patriarch of Constantinople, to the examination of his writings. They had no sooner been read than the assembled bishops with one voice exclaimed: "Anathema to such impious teaching! Anathema to whoever holds such opinions! They are contrary to Sacred Scripture and to the tradition of the Fathers!" Pope St. Celestin's letter was then read, and inserted in full in the acts of the council. Finally, solemn sentence was pronounced in these words: "Nestorius having refused to answer our summons and to receive the bishops sent to him, we have been obliged to enter upon an examination of his impieties. He is convicted, on the evidence of his letters, his writings and his discourses, of holding and spreading scandalous and heretical opinions. Bound by the holy canons, and by the letter of our Holy Father Celestin, bishop of Rome, we are reduced, not without tears of heart felt sorrow, to the cruel necessity of pronouncing this sentence against him: Our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, decides, through this most holy council, that he is deprived of the episcopal dignity, and cut off from every ecclesiastical body."
(A GENERAL HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, by M. L'ABBE J. E. DARRAS, FIRST AMERICAN FROM THE LAST FRENCH EDITION, WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES BY THE MOST REV. M. J. SPALDING, D. D., ARCHBISHOP OF BALTIMORE, VOL. 1, NEW YORK: P. O'SHEA, PUBLISHER, 37 BARCLAY STREET, Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1865, pp. 571-574)