12 Refutations of the Cassiciacum Thesis

MarkEscobar1993

Follow

67 min read

·

Jan 27, 2026

1

1

Listen

Share

Press enter or click to view image in full size

***********************

Introduction

Among sedevacantists — that is, those who rightly hold that the See of Saint Peter is presently vacant — there exist two prominent positions: Totalism and the Cassiciacum Thesis.

The first group, the Totalists, holds that the reason for the vacancy of the See of Saint Peter pertains both to the divine and true order and to the juridical order. This group maintains that the Novus Ordo hierarchy, by reason of its lack of the Catholic faith and its heretical character, receives no authority whatsoever in the divine and true order; moreover, from the standpoint of the juridical order, since it belongs to a non-Catholic sect, it likewise possesses no right to ecclesiastical offices.

The position of the Cassiciacum Thesis, however, is different. Like the Totalists, its proponents accept that, in the divine and true order, the Novus Ordo hierarchy is devoid of authority; but they insist that their offices are not yet vacant in the juridical order. They deny that the Novus Ordo is, in law, a church separate from the Catholic Church, and therefore hold that, although its members possess no authority, since they have not yet been juridically condemned, they still enjoy certain privileges — most notably, that they can elect and be elected to ecclesiastical offices, and thus continue ecclesiastical offices in a merely material manner. In this regard we read:

Therefore while the Novus Ordo members of the hierarchy are in fact public heretics and outside the Church, nonetheless, owing to absence of legal action, they retain their legal designations and their purely legal posts. They are not the authority, they are not true popes or true bishops, but are legally in the position to become true popes and bishops, if they should remove the obstacle to authority.

- Bp. Sanborn, Explanation of the Thesis of Bishop Guerard Des Lauriers, [29 June 2002], p. 5

This thesis, in contrast to Totalism, maintains that the reason why the Novus Ordo “popes” are not popes is not heresy or membership in a non-Catholic sect — which would require a juridical declaration by the Church — but rather the absence of a correct objective intention, together with the presence of an objective intention to impose errors and heresies upon the Church. Consequently, although the Novus Ordo “popes,” by reason of this objective intention, receive no authority from God, nevertheless, since they have been designated in a canonical manner, if they were to remove this obstacle and acquire a correct objective intention, they would immediately receive authority from God and become true popes. In this regard we read:

THE THESIS argues that a pope-elect who intends to impose false doctrines upon the Church (such as the Vatican II errors) does not intend to properly fulfill the obligations attached to the papal office and therefore cannot be the pope formally, i.e., with authority, until he removes this voluntary obstacle. … THE THESIS affirms that “Vatican II popes” although they have no authority to rule the Church by reason of a defect of intention, they nevertheless retain an aspect of the papacy, namely, a valid election. According to THE THESIS, “Vatican II popes” are popes materially (materialiter) but not formally (formaliter). … THE THESIS recognizes, on the one hand, the pope-elect status of the person designated by the cardinals, since papal elections must be assumed valid until the Church legally declares otherwise, and on the other hand demonstrates that a proper acceptance of the election has not occurred by reason of an obstacle (defect of intention).

- Rev. Nicolás E. Despósito, The Little Catechism on the Thesis

This thesis further maintains that, since the election of a new pope belongs exclusively to the cardinals, therefore — even though both the Novus Ordo “pope” and the Novus Ordo cardinals are devoid of any Jurisdiction and authority — by reason of “necessity,” the power to designate cardinals, and consequently the power to elect a new pope, is supplied directly by Christ to the Novus Ordo “pope” and to the Novus Ordo cardinals; as we read:

10. …“Vatican II popes” are able to appoint cardinals not with ordinary power which they lack by reason of an obstacle, but with supplied power, which Christ directly grants to them for those acts which are absolutely necessary for the Church to continue existing and functioning. One of those necessary acts is the appointment of papal electors. Perpetual successors of Peter demand perpetual electors of Peter. When there is no pope, the papacy remains, in a sense, in the College of Cardinals, since the cardinals are able to produce the matter, i.e., the subject recipient of authority (form).

11. …the only power “Vatican II popes” are capable of receiving is supplied power, which Christ directly grants to them for those acts which are absolutely necessary for the Church to continue existing and functioning. … The Thesis affirms that the suppleance of jurisdiction in “Vatican II popes” is the only way to guarantee the continuity of the Church as an organization juridically constituted. … The suppleance is guaranteed only for those acts which are absolutely necessary for the continuation of the Catholic Church.

- Rev. Nicolás E. Despósito, The Little Catechism on the Thesis

*

the “Vatican II popes” do not receive supplied power indiscriminately, but only inasmuch as it is necessary for the common good of the Church… Christ could, and certainly would, in accordance with these principles, supply acts which are necessary for the very continuation of the Church, such as the appointment of papal electors.

- Rev. Damien Dutertre, On the Canonical Crime of Heresy, n. 25

Why Are We Completely Opposed to This Thesis?

We are completely opposed to this thesis. The author of the present article was himself, in the past, a follower of this thesis for a period of approximately one year; however, after observing its internal contradictions and its conflict with numerous teachings of the Church, he not only rejected it, but now regards it as the “worst” and “most harmful” position in the Church’s present crisis.

This thesis is the worst position, because the position that stands in the greatest conflict with the dogmatic teachings of the Church is necessarily the worst. As we have shown in refutations nos. 7 through 12, this thesis conflicts with multiple dogmatic teachings. Among the three positions currently found among traditional Catholics — namely Totalism, the Cassiciacum Thesis, and Recognize and Resist — the Cassiciacum Thesis is the one that conflicts most severely with the dogmatic teachings of the Church; therefore, it is the worst position.

This thesis is the most harmful position, because although it correctly identifies the principal problem of the present crisis — namely, the vacancy of the See of Saint Peter — yet, by virtue of its erroneous premises, it discourages the Church from taking any action whatsoever to emerge from this crisis. In this way, it completely disarms the Church in the face of the present crisis and places all the necessary judicial instruments for resolving the crisis into the hands of the enemies of the Church themselves, who are in fact the very authors of the present crisis. Consequently, a thesis which not only offers no practical solution for delivering the Church from the crisis, but which also restrains the Church from any form of action, and thereby causes the prolonged usurpatory rule of the enemies of the Church of Christ over the Church, is the most harmful thesis.

For this reason, the author of the present article — who for a long time, in order to preserve unity among sedevacantists, had refrained from openly criticizing this thesis — has decided in this article to reject the Cassiciacum Thesis as the worst and most harmful thesis in the present crisis, so that, through the refutation of this most harmful thesis, a step may be taken toward resolving the Church’s current crisis.

We have undertaken this task in the form of twelve refutations, presented below. This does not mean that all of these refutations are necessary in order to refute the thesis; each one of them, taken by itself, suffices to refute it. Nor does this mean that the refutations of this thesis are limited to these twelve; rather, deliberately and for the sake of brevity, we have refrained from presenting several additional refutations and have restricted the present article to the exposition of twelve refutations alone. Likewise, in this article we do not intend to respond to the unjust objections which they raise against the position of Totalism, because doing so would render the article excessively long.

We now proceed to the presentation of the refutations as follows:

**********************

Refutation 1

Major: For the thesis to be true, the Novus Ordo cardinals and popes must not be members of a non-Catholic sect.

Minor: But the Novus Ordo cardinals and popes are members of a non-Catholic sect.

Conclusion: Therefore, the thesis is not true.

*

Proof of the Major: For the thesis to be true, the Novus Ordo cardinals and popes must not be members of a non-Catholic sect.

The proponents of the thesis argue that, although it may be true that the Novus Ordo hierarchy is heretical in the divine order and in reality outside the Church, nevertheless they are not recognized as such from the standpoint of canon law. Consequently, they not only do not automatically lose their offices, but also retain the capacity both to elect and to be elected to ecclesiastical offices. This is because, according to them, the Novus Ordo has not yet been condemned by the Church, and its members are therefore still regarded as Catholics in law. In this regard they argue as follows:

The Vatican II “popes” are legitimate designees to be true popes, but lack jurisdiction, because of the obstacle that they posit to the reception of the authority. This is so because the law has never severed the Novus Ordo religion from the Catholic Church. … The Novus Ordo, on the other hand, is in fact not Catholic, is a sect inasmuch as it professes apostasy, but has not been legally severed from the Catholic Church. Indeed, this sad fact, that the Novus Ordo has not been severed, is the very heart of the problem which we face today. If it were clear, by legal declaration, that Vatican II was a defection from the faith, the problem in the Church would cease. It is only due to the fact that the heretics have the mask of legality.

- Bp. Sanborn, Explanation of the Thesis of Bishop Guerard Des Lauriers, 29 June 2002, pp. 5, 6

*

What is different, however, between Martin Luther and the Novus Ordo? There is this significant difference: Martin Luther was excommunicated and subsequently founded his own church. The Novus Ordites have never been excommunicated, and have never founded their own church. This difference is the key to understanding the present problems in the Catholic Church.

- Bp. Sanborn, Ecclesiastical Materialism, p. 2

*

In the present situation, we are not dealing with clergy who have joined or publicly adhered to a non-Catholic sect, such as the Lutheran Church, or the Anglican Church … On the contrary we are dealing with clergy who, despite the fact of saying heretical things, are very eager to claim that they are Catholics, and that they have authority, functions, and offices in the Catholic Church.

- Rev. Damien Dutertre, On the Canonical Crime of Heresy, n. 22

However, if the Novus Ordo were a non-Catholic church and sect, then its members, without any judicial sentence, would incur not only excommunication but also infamy (infamia); they would then be barred from appointment and promotion to any ecclesiastical office, and any office they might obtain would be invalid even in the juridical order — that is, they would not even be able to constitute the material element of authority. Consequently, the argument of His Excellency Bishop Sanborn would collapse. In this regard we read:

Canon 2314

3. If they give their names to non-catholic sects or publicly adhere [to them], they are by that fact infamus.

- Pope Benedict XV, Code of Canon Law, 27 May 1917

*

An inscription to a sect, i.e. one gives his name to a false church or a pagan religion. This produces an automatic infamy of law, without the need of any declaration or enforcement by the superior. This infamy of law makes one unable to acquire any further office or benefice, for as long as this infamy exists.

- Eduardo Fernández Regatillo, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, vol. I, Santander, [1956], p. 552

*

The joining of the non-Catholic sect may follow after the externalization of heretical error as a consequence, or may itself be the first external act which manifests the internal sin of heresy. In either case, the delinquent incurs first the basic excommunication inflicted on simple heresy. In addition, as a penalty for his aggravated delict, he incurs juridical infamy ipso facto, whether or no there is further official action by the Church. This is quite independent of infamy of fact, and may exist without the loss of reputation in the judgment of the general public. It is a juridical status, which consists of a series of incapacities, which may be summed up as follows:

1. irregularity, (canon 984), which prevents promotion to Orders; disqualification for benefices, for legitimate ecclesiatical acts, and for the fulfilment of ecclesiastical offices and charges, (canon 2294, §1): …

Moreover, the Code provides that this juridical infamy can be removed only by dispensation by the Holy See.” The juridical infamy here spoken of is incurred by all baptized persons who become members of non-Catholic sects. This legislation therefore includes all lay persons and all clerics who previously were members of the Church. In addition, it applies to all those who were validly baptized but were brought up in sectarian belief. In other words, Protestants, Nestorians, etc., must be presumed responsible for their external acts in violation of the law of the Church, unless and until the contrary is proved.

- Rev. Eric Francis MacKenzie, The Delict of Heresy, Catholic University of America, [1932], pp. 53, 54

In this regard, we read:

Canon 2294

§ 1. Whoever labors under infamy of law not only is irregular according to the norm of Canon 984, n. 5, but moreover is incapable of obtaining benefices, pensions, offices and ecclesiastical dignities, and of conducting legitimate ecclesiastical acts, of exercising rights and ecclesiastical responsibilities, and even must be prevented from exercising ministry in sacred functions.

*

Legal infamy entails disability or disqualification for any ecclesiastical benefice, pension, office, dignity; if conferred, the act is invalid (can. 2391).

- Rev. Charles Augustine, O.S.B., A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, St. Louis : B. Herder Book Co., vol. VIII, [1931], p. 246

*

Canon 2294, §1. “Incapable of obtaining,” that is, one is rendered incapable of obtaining benefices, etc., to such an extent that their conferral and the exercise of legitimate acts pertaining to them are of no validity.

- Udalricus Beste, O.S.B., Introductio in Codicem, Collegeville: St. John’s Abbey Press, [1946], p. 950

*

It should be noted that this incapacity affects the validity of acts; therefore, benefices, offices, pensions, and dignities obtained, as well as legitimate ecclesiastical acts performed by a person affected by juridical infamy, are not merely illicit, but are also invalidly obtained or performed.

- Matthaeus a Coronata O.M. Cap., Institutiones Iuris Canonici, Taurini (Italia) : Ex officina libraria Mariette, [1928], vol. IV, p. 257

Moreover, His Excellency Bishop Sanborn himself states:

Those who have been born in non-Catholic sects, even if they should err by good faith, are presumed legally to be pertinacious, and therefore are outside the Church legally.

- Bp. Sanborn, On Being Pope Materially Second Part: Explanation of The Thesis, p. 26

Proof of the Minor: But the Novus Ordo cardinals and popes are members of a non-Catholic sect.

First, let us examine how a non-Catholic sect is defined and what its implications are.

To the Catholic the distinction of Church and sect presents no difficulty. For him, any Christian denomination which has set itself up independently of his own Church is a sect. According to Catholic teaching any Christians who, banded together refuse to accept the entire doctrine or to acknowledge the supreme authority of the Catholic Church, constitute merely a religious party under human unauthorized leadership.

- Charles George Herbermann, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Robert Appleton Company, vol. XIII, [1912], p. 675

*

It may safely be said that the continuity of a society is broken when a radical change in the principles it embodies is introduced. In the case of a Church, such a change in its hierarchical constitution and in its professed faith suffices to make it a different Church from what it was before. For the societies we term Churches exist as the embodiment of certain supernatural dogmas and of a Divinely-authorized principle of government. when, therefore, the truths previously field to be of faith are rejected, and the principle of government regarded as sacred is repudiated, there is a breach of continuity, and a new Church is formed. … The continuity of a Church depends essentially on its government and its beliefs.

- Charles George Herbermann, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Press, Incorporated, vol. III, [1913], p. 757

*

A sect is any religious society established in opposition to the Catholic Church, whether it consists of infidels, pagans, Jews, Moslems, non-Catholics, or schismatics.

- Rev. Charles. Augustine, O.S.B., A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, B. Herder Book Co., vol. VIII, [1919], p. 279

*

A non-Catholic sect in the strict sense is a religious group which, although it retains the Christian name, denies the Catholic faith by doctrine or by deeds.

- A. Vermeersch S.J., I. Creusen S.J., Epitome Iuris Canonici, Mechliniae : H. Dessain, vol. III, [1933], n. 513, p. 311

*

A non-Catholic sect, in the proper sense, is a gathering (or association) of people with a speculative or practical doctrine to be followed publicly or secretly, which is in conflict with Catholic doctrine.

- Alberto Blat, O.P., Commentarium Textus Codicis Iuris Canonici, Romae, vol. II, p. 281

*

A non-Catholic sect is a society of persons which, whether publicly or privately, professes a doctrine contrary to the Catholic faith.

- Matthaeus a Coronata O.M. Cap., Institutiones Iuris Canonici, Taurini (Italia) : Ex officina libraria Mariette, [1928], vol. I, p. 689

*

A non-Catholic sect is any sect, whether Christian, Jewish, or pagan, that is not Catholic, provided that it is a religious sect or one whose purpose, at least as its principal or a principal purpose, is to promote acatholic religious worship.

- Matthaeus a Coronata O.M. Cap., Institutiones Iuris Canonici, Taurini (Italia) : Ex officina libraria Mariette, [1928], vol. IV, p. 289

*

Under the term ‘non-Catholic sects’ are included whatsoever groups of people who profess some non-Catholic religion, whether Christian or atheistic.

- Udalricus Beste, O.S.B., Introductio in Codicem, Collegeville: St. John’s Abbey Press, [1946], p. 957

As can be seen, canonists do not require that a group be condemned by the Church in order for it to be considered a non-Catholic sect. As soon as a group is formed in opposition to a teaching of the Church, it is a non-Catholic sect, even if it has not been condemned under that title. In this regard, Pope Pius IX, speaking about a schismatic group which had also retained the Catholic name, states:

Since the faction from Armenia is like this, they are schismatics even if they had not yet been condemned as such by Apostolic authority.

- Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra, 6 January 1873

Therefore, as can be seen, for the designation non-Catholic sect to apply to a group — whether heretical or schismatic — it is not necessary that the group be formally condemned by the Church. It suffices that it be constituted in opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The history of the Church likewise confirms this truth. For example, the Anglican sect has never been condemned by the Church under this specific title; yet there is no doubt whatsoever that it is a non-Catholic sect.

But in light of the foregoing definitions, the Novus Ordo is certainly a non-Catholic sect:

• The Catholic Church regards religious liberty as a diabolic heresy and an insanity; the Novus Ordo calls religious liberty a sacred and innate right of man.
• The Catholic Church holds that the Church of Christ is identical with the Catholic Church; the Novus Ordo holds that the Church of Christ is broader than the Catholic Church.
• The Catholic Church teaches that the Church currently possesses unity; the Novus Ordo teaches that the Church currently lacks unity.
• The Catholic Church teaches that the only path to unity among churches is the return of non-Catholics to the Catholic Church; the Novus Ordo rejects the teaching of the return of non-Catholics to the Catholic Church.
• The Catholic Church teaches that the Catholic Church is the sole means of salvation; the Novus Ordo teaches that non-Catholic churches and even non-Christian religions are also means of salvation.
• The Catholic Church forbids the administration of the Eucharist to non-Catholics; the Novus Ordo permits the administration of the Eucharist to non-Catholics.
• The Catholic Church forbids prayer with non-Catholics; the Novus Ordo praises and encourages prayer with non-Catholics.

Other examples could also be added to this list; however, even a single deviation in faith is sufficient for the designation non-Catholic sect to apply to a group.

Therefore, in accordance with the aforementioned points, the Novus Ordo is certainly a non-Catholic sect and has no need whatsoever of being condemned by the Church in order to be such.

Objection: The Novus Ordo is not a sect, because traditional Catholic priests and bishops receive converted Novus Ordos without requiring abjuration, as we read:

Their legal status as Catholics is confirmed by the fact that all traditional priests admit them to the practice of the traditional Faith without any lifting of excommunication, and without any public or formal abjuration of error.

- Bp. Sanborn, Explanation of the Thesis of Bishop Guerard Des Lauriers, [29 June 2002], p. 7

Response: In reply, we shall simply quote verbatim the precise and scholarly response of Rev. John Okerulu:

The question here is with regard to what the presumption of the law is with regard to lay faithful of the Novus Ordo Sect, and consequently, what the correct course of action should be with regard to their conversion and requirement for abjuration. The Novus Ordo Hierarchy The entire Novus Ordo hierarchy has defected into public heresy because of its public, manifest and pertinacious adherence to the heresies of Vatican II. This external act having been placed, namely, knowingly adhering to a sect or to its false doctrines, is an external violation of the law and dolus in the external forum is presumed. This is a solid basis for the sedevacantist argument. For this reason, most traditional Catholic bishops and priests will most certainly require an abjuration if Ratzinger, for example, converted. I have heard firsthand the most ardent proponents of the Thesis admit this. But they do not require this abjuration for the lay Catholic. And the solid basis for this practice is as explained below. The Novus Ordo Lay Faithful Not all who belong to non-Catholic sects ought to be considered as non-Catholics. It is commonly held by all theologians and canonists that all infants who are baptised validly in non-Catholic sects before they attain the use of reason are members of the Church. Before the Code it was disputed whether children who have attained the age of reason incur automatic excommunication or not, but the Code settled the dispute by insisting that they are free from contracting any censure until they have attained puberty (14 years). Hence contrary to what some still hold, children validly baptised in non-Catholic sects who have attained the use of reason if they return to the Church, are not to make any abjuration. They need not be absolved from any excommunication (cf. Canon 2230) but instead are to make a simple profession of faith. The Canonist Augustine explains the reason with this general principle of law “Ignorance of fact not of law, excuses” (See Appendix 1 for details). Hence although Canon 2200 § 2 says that “the external violation of the law having been placed, dolus (deceit) is presumed in the external forum,” it added, “until the contrary is proved.” It is easy to see how a child, though he has attained the age of reason, can be ignorant of the fact that he is in a non-Catholic Church. This same principle adopted by the Code in the case of children baptised in non-Catholic sects who have attained the age of reason, can and is indeed applied by Traditional Catholic Clergy to members of the Novus Ordo sect who sincerely think the Novus Ordo Sect to be the Catholic Church for the following reasons: 1) The Novus Ordo Sect retains the name Catholic. 2) The hierarchy of the Novus Ordo Sect lays a false claim to the Sees and offices of the Catholic Church. Most of the simple faithful in the Novus Ordo Sect are unaware of the facts concerning the changes made by the Novus Ordo, in doctrine, worship and discipline, which as we have seen constitute the Novus Ordo institution as a new sect. Many comfortably read the lives of the saints and history of the Church while retaining confidence that they belong to the same Church! With the aforesaid, the lay faithful of the Novus Ordo Sect are rightly presumed to be deceived rather than pertinacious in adhering to the heresies of Vatican II. Nevertheless, the Church enjoins her clergy to request a profession of faith from such as return to the Catholic Church.

- Rev. John Okerulu, On the Present State of the Church of Christ, pp. 4, 5

Now, given that the Novus Ordo is a non-Catholic sect, the argument of the thesis collapses. The members of the Novus Ordo sect not only lack authority and jurisdiction in the divine order, but also lack, in the juridical order of the Church, the qualifications required to elect and to be elected to ecclesiastical offices. Their appointment and election to ecclesiastical offices are entirely null, producing no effect whatsoever, whether divine, juridical, or ecclesiastical. Consequently, they are not the material subject of authority. Therefore, the thesis is not true.

**********************

Refutation 2

Major: For the thesis to be true, the Novus Ordo cardinals must be lawful with respect to the priesthood.

Minor: But the Novus Ordo cardinals are not lawful with respect to the priesthood.

Conclusion: Therefore, the thesis is not true.

*

Proof of the Major: For the thesis to be true, the Novus Ordo cardinals must be lawful with respect to the priesthood.

This thesis holds that the election of the Pope belongs exclusively, and under all circumstances, to the cardinals; it also holds that both the Novus Ordo bishops and the traditional Catholic bishops lack all jurisdiction and authority, and therefore cannot elect a Pope in an imperfect general council. Hence, the College of Cardinals is of crucial importance for them. Consequently, the validity of this thesis depends on the Novus Ordo cardinals being lawful and legitimate; otherwise, no instrument for the election of a Pope remains in the Church. Should such a situation occur, it would contradict the dogmatic teaching of the First Vatican Council, which teaches that Saint Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy. For this reason, they insist that the Novus Ordo cardinals are legitimate and lawful electors; as we read:

unless the power of legitimate election were there, the papal lineage would be snuffed out. The Church absolutely needs legitimate electors and a legitimate election. … They may be phony cardinals, but they are not phony electors.

- Bp. Sanborn, Explanation of the Thesis of Bishop Guerard Des Lauriers, [29 June 2002], p. 6

However, one of the conditions for the lawful election of a person as a cardinal according to the Code of Canon Law is that he must at least be a priest; in this regard we read:

Canon 232

§ 1. Cardinals are men freely selected by the Roman Pontiff from throughout the whole world who are at least constituted in the presbyteral order.

- Pope Benedict XV, Code of Canon Law, 27 May 1917

Several authoritative commentaries on the Code of Canon Law, in interpreting this canon, state:

The qualifications required for the cardinalate are partly stated by the Council of Trent, and partly in the Constitution “Postquam” of Sixtus V, Dec. 3, 1585. At present, in addition, the priesthood is absolutely required.

- Charles Augustine, O.S.B., A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, B. Herder, vol. II, [1918], p. 233

*

The creation of Cardinals is reserved to the free choice of the Roman Pontiff. The men must be at least priests.

- Stanislaus Woywod, O.F.M., A Preactical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Joseph F. Wagner, vol. I, [1926], p. 88

*

The law provides that only priests can be chosen cardinals.

- Abbo-Hannan, The Sacred Canons, St. Louis, Mo.: B. Heder, vol. I, [1952], p. 294

*

The qualities required in a cardinal are these: 1) He must be a priest, either secular or religious.

- Matthew Ramstein, A Manual of Canon Law, Terminal Printing & Publishing Company, [1948], p. 198

Therefore, it is established that for the Novus Ordo cardinals to be lawful, they must at least be priests.

Proof of the Minor: But the Novus Ordo cardinals are not lawful with respect to the priesthood.

We establish this from the very words of the adherents of the thesis themselves. The adherents of the thesis teach that Paul VI, by changing the rites of ordination and consecration, rendered the sacrament of Holy Orders invalid, and that those who are ordained or consecrated according to these rites acquire no sacramental power; for example, we read:

The Novus Ordo religion has invalidated or made doubtful every sacrament. We have already seen the doubt it has caused in Baptism. What is yet worse, it has invalidated the consecration of bishops, which in turn invalidates the sacrament of Holy Orders.

- Bp. Sanborn, Can Novus Ordo Baptisms be Trusted as Valid?, [2023], p. 8

*

If the new formula does not unequivocally express the power of orders, but instead gives a vague reference to the function of ruling or governing (which Vatican II teaches to be conferred by episcopal consecration), then at least one of the essential requirements established by Pius XII is not fulfilled, and the new formula ought to be regarded as invalid.

- Rev. Damien Dutertre, On Collegiality, n. 36

Those who, at least over the past several decades, have been elevated to the cardinalate within the Novus Ordo sect — apart from a few individuals in the Eastern rites — do not possess the priesthood. Therefore, these individuals cannot be legitimate cardinals in the legal order. Naturally, since they cannot be lawful electors, they likewise cannot lawfully elect a Pope. Consequently, neither they themselves nor the Pope elected by them are material subjects of authority.

Objection: It is true that one may say the overwhelming majority of cardinals are not lawful with respect to the priesthood; however, the College of Cardinals of the Novus Ordo sect continues by virtue of that small number of Eastern-rite cardinals, and those few Eastern-rite cardinals can elect the Pope.

Response: This solution does not substantially assist the thesis.

Let us consider the conclave of 2005. In that conclave, only three Eastern-rite cardinals voted: Ignace Moussa I Daoud (Syriac) (1930–2012), Varkey Vithayathil (Syro-Malabar) (1927–2011), and Lubomyr Husar (Ukrainian) (1933–2017), all three of whom had been elevated to the cardinalate by John Paul II. In that conclave, Joseph Ratzinger was ultimately elected Pope in the fourth ballot, having obtained more than 78 votes out of 117. We now ask the adherents of the thesis: what certainty is there that these three Eastern cardinals voted for Joseph Ratzinger in each of the four ballots and not for someone else? It is noteworthy that all three of these cardinals did not participate in the subsequent conclave.

In the conclave of 2013, only four Eastern-rite cardinals voted: Antonios Naguib (Coptic) (1935–2022), Béchara Boutros Raï (Maronite) (1940–), George Alencherry (Syro-Malabar) (1945–), and Baselios Cleemis Thottunkal (Syro-Malankara) (1959–). All four of these cardinals were elevated to the cardinalate by Benedict XVI, concerning whom we have seen that there is no certainty that he himself was elected by those three Eastern cardinals, such that he could at least materially elevate others to the cardinalate. Ultimately, in that conclave, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected Pope in the fifth ballot, having obtained more than 78 votes out of 117. Once again, we ask the adherents of the thesis: what certainty is there that those four Eastern-rite cardinals (whose own elevation to the cardinalate is itself uncertain with respect to the person who elevated them) voted for Jorge Mario Bergoglio in each of the five ballots and not for another person? It suffices that in any one of those five ballots, three of the four aforementioned Eastern cardinals voted for another cardinal, and then it can no longer be said that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected by the cardinals.

These same unanswered questions and ambiguities arise for the conclave of 2025 and for every new conclave, and the adherents of the thesis are confronted with ever more unanswered questions.

Therefore, even the Eastern-rite cardinals do not, over the long term, provide assistance to the thesis; and as we have seen, at least from the conclave of 2005 onward, the College of Cardinals is unlawful even with respect to the Eastern cardinals, or at least its lawfulness cannot be demonstrated. Consequently, the thesis can no longer claim that the Novus Ordo cardinals and Novus Ordo popes possess lawful designation; therefore, the thesis is false.

**********************

Refutation 3

Major: For the thesis to be true, the Novus Ordo cardinals, regardless of their legitimacy, must be identifiable and known.

Minor: But the Novus Ordo cardinals, regardless of their legitimacy, are not identifiable and known.

Conclusion: Therefore, the thesis is not true.

*

Proof of the Major: For the thesis to be true, the Novus Ordo cardinals, regardless of their legitimacy, must be identifiable and known.

The major premise is self-evident: naturally, regardless of whether the Novus Ordo cardinals are lawful cardinals or not, they must at least be identifiable and known. We must know precisely who is a cardinal and who is not, in order subsequently to ascribe to him the right to designate and elect a Pope.

Proof of the Minor: But the Novus Ordo cardinals, regardless of their legitimacy, are not identifiable and known.

If, according to the thesis, we hold that the Novus Ordo cardinals are lawful cardinals, then we are confronted with a major problem: at present it is not clear who exactly is a cardinal and who is not. For according to canon 231 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and in the legal order, the total number of cardinals was fixed at 70; as we read:

Canon 231

§ 1. The Sacred College [of Cardinals] is divided into three orders: episcopal, to which belong only those six Cardinals over the various suburbicarian dioceses; presbyteral, which consists of fifty Cardinals; and diaconal, which [consists of] fourteen [Cardinals].

- Pope Benedict XV, Code of Canon Law, 27 May 1917

But this maximum was abolished by the Novus Ordo popes, and the maximum was increased to 120 cardinal electors, which in practice has even been exceeded, such that in the conclave of 2025 there were 133 cardinal electors; in this regard we read:

While the number of cardinals has varied historically, the former code, like Sixtus V (1586), fixed their number at seventy: six bishops, fifty presbyters, and fourteen deacons (CIC 231, §1). However, since John XXIII there has been no maximum number, although since Paul VI only 120 may vote in the papal election.

- Thomas J. Green, New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Paulist Press, [2000], p. 468

Therefore, at present it is neither clear nor determinable which, among more than 120 Novus Ordo cardinals, belong to the 70 lawful cardinals and which do not. Nor can the followers and defenders of the thesis in any way present to us the names of 70 cardinals from among more than 120 Novus Ordo cardinals and precisely determine that these 70 are the lawful cardinals. Each of the cardinals could be among those 70, and could also not be among them. We are precisely in a situation in which it is not known who is a cardinal and who is not a cardinal. These doubtful cardinals consequently cannot proceed to the designation of a Pope, and their action in designating a Pope is entirely null, because it is not certain that any candidate elected by such a conclave has truly been elected by two-thirds of the 70 lawful cardinals. It is even possible that two-thirds of those 70 lawful cardinals may have chosen another person in the preliminary ballots, but since their votes alone did not reach the required quorum when mixed with the votes of the other unlawful cardinals, the voting continued, and in the end a person other than the lawful elect was chosen and proclaimed.

Therefore, the thesis can no longer claim that the Novus Ordo popes possess lawful designation, because there is no proof or certainty that the Novus Ordo popes were designated by two-thirds of those 70 lawful cardinals. Such a candidate consequently cannot elevate new cardinals to the cardinalatial dignity. Therefore, both the Novus Ordo cardinals and the elected Novus Ordo popes are not lawful, nor even material subjects of authority; therefore the thesis is false.

As we shall see in the next refutation, we shall show that in a situation in which it is not known who is a cardinal and who is not a cardinal, the election of the Pope devolves upon an imperfect ecumenical council, not upon those indeterminate cardinals.

Objection: Since the determination of papal electors belongs to the elected Pope, even a materially elected Pope can take action to change the law regarding the electors.

Response: This response is not acceptable; because by accepting it, the other principles and premises of the thesis are undermined. In this case, we would have to admit that the Novus Ordo Pope possesses the power to make law and, consequently, jurisdiction; therefore he would, in the true sense of the word, be a Pope — something which the thesis itself rejects. His Excellency Bishop Sanborn himself has repeatedly stated:

Someone who is merely designated for an office cannot make a law.

- Bp. Sanborn, Explanation of the Thesis of Bishop Guerard Des Lauriers, [29 June 2002], p. 4

*

The right of electing the person to receive authority is not an authority or jurisdiction, because those who have this right, do not necessarily have the right of making a law.

- Bp. Sanborn, On Being Pope Materially Second Part: Explanation of The Thesis, p. 12

**********************

Refutation 4

Major: For the thesis to be true, the election of the Pope must necessarily and under all circumstances belong to the cardinals.

Minor: But necessarily and under all circumstances, the election of the Pope does not belong to the cardinals.

Conclusion: Therefore, the thesis is not true.

*

Proof of the Major: For the thesis to be true, the election of the Pope must necessarily and under all circumstances belong to the cardinals.

In order to lend credibility to the thesis, its adherents need to prove that the election of the Pope necessarily and under all circumstances belongs to the cardinals. If this claim is refuted, and if, for example, it is accepted that in certain cases the election of the Pope can be carried out by an imperfect council, then the Cassiciacum Thesis becomes entirely useless and unnecessary; and if this thesis becomes unnecessary, its premises — which are built upon necessity — collapse. For this reason, the defenders of the thesis are compelled to impress upon their audience that the Pope must necessarily and under all circumstances be elected by the College of Cardinals; as we read:

9. …The College of Cardinals is the only body that can validly elect the Pope. Pope Pius XII, echoing his predecessors, affirms that “the right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs solely and exclusively to the Cardinals.

- Rev. Nicolás E. Despósito, The Little Catechism on the Thesis

Proof of the Minor: But necessarily and under all circumstances, the election of the Pope does not belong to the cardinals.

It is clear that the assumption upon which the thesis is based is a false one: the election of the Pope does not necessarily and under all circumstances belong to the College of Cardinals. Yes, together with Pope Pius XII we concede that the election of the Pope belongs exclusively to the College of Cardinals; but this law pertains to ordinary circumstances, that is, in the presence of a legitimate and known College of Cardinals. However, in extraordinary circumstances — for example, when the legitimate College of Cardinals has become extinct, or when the true cardinals are not known — it can no longer be insisted that the election of the Pope must still belong to the College of Cardinals.

In fact, the method of reasoning employed by the adherents of the thesis in this matter is exactly analogous to the method of reasoning of the Dimondite sect. That sect, by appealing to texts which affirm the necessity of baptism of water (which pertains to ordinary circumstances), rejects baptism of desire and baptism of blood (which pertain to extraordinary circumstances). Likewise, the adherents of the thesis, by appealing to the statement of Pope Pius XII regarding the necessity of election by the cardinals (which pertains to ordinary times), seek to reject other methods of papal election which pertain to extraordinary circumstances.

In this regard, it must first be noted that the election of the Pope through the College of Cardinals is a matter of human law, not divine law; as we read:

The mode of election [of the Pope] now in vogue is merely a human (ecclesiastical) law.

- Charles Augustine, O.S.B., A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, B. Herder, vol. II, [1918], p. 118

Secondly, according to canon 20 of the Code of Canon Law, when there is no law governing a matter, recourse must be had to the common opinions of the Doctors; in this canon we read:

Canon 20

If on a given matter there is lacking an express prescription of law, whether general or particular, the rule is to be surmised, unless it concerns the application of a penalty, from laws laid down in similar cases; [then] from the general principles of law observed with canonical equity; [then] from the style and practice of the Roman Curia; and [finally] from the common and constant opinions of the doctors.

- Pope Benedict XV, Code of Canon Law, 27 May 1917

Theologians and Doctors of the Church have likewise emphasized that in certain cases — such as doubt regarding whether a person is Pope, or the extinction of the legitimate College of Cardinals, or the inability to identify the true cardinals — the election of the Pope belongs to the Roman clergy or to an imperfect general council. In the present circumstances, however, such disagreement no longer exists, because at present the Roman clergy themselves no longer exist; and the only remaining option is the election of the Pope by an imperfect general council. These matters are raised by Cardinal Billot in his work, and he then responds to them by citing Cardinal Cajetan:

The question is asked what the law would be, if perhaps an extraordinary case should occur in which it would be necessary to proceed to the election of the Pontiff, when it would no longer be possible to observe the conditions determined by the preceding pontifical law, as many think happened at the time of the great schism in the election of Martin V. Moreover, once the occurrence of such circumstances is supposed, it must without difficulty be admitted that the power of election would devolve upon a general council. For it follows from natural law itself that, in cases of this kind, the attribution of supreme power passes by way of devolution to the power immediately following, precisely insofar as is required for society to be preserved and for the straits of extreme necessity to be escaped. “But in the case of ambiguity (because it is not known whether someone is a true Cardinal … when the Pope is dead or uncertain, as seems to have occurred at the beginning of the great schism under Urban VI), it must be asserted that in the Church of God there exists a power of applying the papacy to a person, with the due requirements observed. And then, by way of devolution, this power seems to devolve upon the universal Church, as though the electors determined by the Pope did not exist.” (Caietanus, nbi supra)

- Louis Billot, S.J., Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, Prati : ex officina libraria Giachetti, [1909] pp. 610, 611

Objection: An ecumenical council requires jurisdiction; both the Novus Ordo hierarchy and the traditional Catholic bishops lack all jurisdiction and therefore cannot participate in an imperfect ecumenical council, and such a council itself would also lack authority.

Response: We concede that the Novus Ordo hierarchy lacks jurisdiction, because they are heretics; we also concede that traditional Catholic bishops lack jurisdiction over a diocese, but we deny that they lack all jurisdiction whatsoever. In our article entitled “The Apostolic Succession Objection Refuted” we have shown and demonstrated that Catholic bishops, by virtue of their episcopal consecration, acquire a certain kind of universal jurisdiction, which individually grants them the right of judgment and a deliberative vote in an ecumenical council. By virtue of this jurisdiction they become members of the college of bishops and perpetuate apostolic succession, and in times of crisis and in the absence of particular churches, they supply for this defect.

However, the authority of the council itself — which is a supreme power — does not, as a whole, arise from the sum of the authority of its participating members. Even residential bishops, in a council, are not exercising their jurisdiction over their respective dioceses. In ordinary circumstances, the authority of an ecumenical council as a whole derives entirely from the Pope; but in extraordinary circumstances, in the absence of a Pope, by reason of necessity and the grave need of the Church, Christ Himself directly supplies this authority to an imperfect ecumenical council; in this regard St. Alphonsus Liguori says:

It should first be noted that the superiority of the Pope over the council does not extend to the dubious Pope in the time of a schism when there is a serious doubt about the legitimacy of his election; because then everyone must submit to the council, as defined by the Council of Constance. Then indeed the General Council draws its supreme power directly from Jesus Christ, as in times of vacancy of the Apostolic See, as it was well said by St. Antoninus.

- St. Alphonsus Liguori, Du Pape et du Concile, Tournai : V.H. Casterman, [1869], p. 439

In truth, we rightly attribute to the council of Catholic bishops the very privilege which the thesis wrongly attributes to the Novus Ordo cardinals.

**********************

Refutation 5

Major: For the thesis to be true, the adherents of the thesis must, according to the criterion laid down by Pope Leo XIII, be able to judge the internal intention of John XXIII and Paul VI at the moment they accepted their election.

Minor: But the adherents of the thesis, according to the criterion laid down by Pope Leo XIII, are not able to judge the internal intention of John XXIII and Paul VI at the moment they accepted their election.

Conclusion: Therefore, the thesis is not true.

*

Proof of the Major: For the thesis to be true, the adherents of the thesis must, according to the criterion laid down by Pope Leo XIII, be able to judge the internal intention of John XXIII and Paul VI at the moment they accepted their election.

The adherents of the Thesis, like the Totalists, have rightly concluded — by observing the teaching of condemned heresies in the name of the Church and through her Magisterium by the Novus Ordo popes, and by taking into account the dogmas of the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church — that the Novus Ordo popes cannot be true popes. The Totalists maintain that, due to the lack of the Catholic faith, these men either never received papal authority from the beginning, or, if they did receive it, they automatically lost their office as soon as they lost the faith and manifested this loss publicly. The Totalist approach is entirely based on the observation of external acts and statements.

However, the Cassiciacum Thesis, which is founded upon the rejection of Totalism and which unjustly and through faulty arguments claims that the loss of the papal office of the Novus Ordo popes cannot be proven through the Totalist Thesis, is forced to adopt a different path. This thesis cannot hold that the Novus Ordo popes later lost papal authority, because its own proponents — erroneously — consider such a loss to require an intervention of the Church and the issuance of a declaratory judgment. Therefore, the only option left to them is to claim that these individuals necessarily never received papal authority from the very beginning due to the existence of an obstacle.

Yet they are also compelled to maintain that this obstacle is neither heresy nor membership in a non-Catholic sect. They are forced to deny that Novus Ordo constitutes a non-Catholic sect, because otherwise all their premises and arguments collapse, as we explained in detail in Refutation no. 1. Likewise, they cannot consider this obstacle to be heresy, because in order to lend credibility to their thesis they are obliged to regard the intervention of the Church and the issuance of a declaratory judgment as necessary; otherwise, not only would the error of the premises of the Cassiciacum Thesis become evident, but the thesis itself would also lose its necessity. And once this thesis loses its necessity, its premises — which are founded upon necessity — also collapse.

Therefore, they are forced to identify this obstacle as a defect in the intention of the elected individuals at the moment they accepted the election, as we read:

The Vatican II “popes” are not true popes since they posit an obstacle to the reception the authority of Christ. … What is this obstacle to authority? It is the intention of promulgating to the whole Church. false doctrines, false liturgy, and evil disciplines, all of which constitute an essential change of the Catholic Faith. … So someone who is legally designated to be pope, but who intends essential evil for the Church, cannot receive the authority of Christ to rule, and remains a pope-elect.

- Bp. Sanborn, Explanation of the Thesis of Bishop Guerard Des Lauriers, [29 June 2002], p. 5

*

John XXIII was elected pope in 1958. By a defect, however, the authority, which is invisible and which is given by Christ the Head of the Church, was never transferred to John XXIII and his successors. What was this defect? It is that they intended to pervert the Church. This evil intention is what has blocked the flow of authority from Christ into them.

- Bp. Sanborn, Ecclesiastical Materialism, pp. 2, 3

*

1. … THE THESIS claims that the current occupant of the See of Peter, although validly elected, has not received papal authority by reason of an obstacle.

7. …The Thesis argues that a pope-elect who intends to impose false doctrines upon the Church (such as the Vatican II errors) does not intend to properly fulfill the obligations attached to the papal office and therefore cannot be the pope formally, i.e., with authority, until he removes this voluntary obstacle.

- Rev. Nicolás E. Despósito, The Little Catechism on the Thesis

In judging the Church’s ability to judge internal intention, they appeal to the statement of Pope Leo XIII:

33. …The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it.

- Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 15 September 1896

As we read:

Concerning the intention of the minister, Pope Leo XIII explains: The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. Pope Leo XIII makes it clear that an intention is by nature something internal, and which is manifested externally. He further confirms that this intention is able to be judged not inasmuch as it is internal, but inasmuch as it is being manifested externally, which is the same principle used by the Thesis in the present argument.

The “Vatican II popes” have accepted the papacy with the manifest intention of imposing on the Catholic Church the new religion of Vatican II. The Roman Catholic Institute asserts that this lack of intention can be traced with moral certainty back to John XXIII. This would become evident by a thorough study of his life and pontificate, which we cannot produce here. It is however acknowledged by John-Paul II himself, in the apostolic constitution Sacrae Disciplinae Leges, of January 25th, 1983, in which he directly ascribes to John XXIII’s intention the new ecclesiology taught by Vatican II and established by the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

- Rev. Damien Dutertre, On the Lack of Intention to Accept the Papacy, n. 28, 43

Thus, as we have seen, the only possible position of the Thesis is to assert the following:

1. The Novus Ordo popes did not receive papal authority from the beginning due to the existence of an obstacle;
2. This obstacle is neither heresy nor membership in a non-Catholic sect, but rather a defect in their intention.

The demonstration of the falsity of either one of these claims necessarily entails the demonstration of the falsity of the Cassiciacum Thesis.

Now, in order to prove their thesis, they must naturally be able, according to the criterion set forth by Pope Leo XIII, to judge that John XXIII on October 28, 1958, and Paul VI on June 21, 1963, at the very moment of their acceptance, lacked the proper intention. We know, according to the teaching of Pope Pius XII, that papal authority is conferred immediately upon acceptance by the elect, as we read:

1. … the power to teach and rule, as well as the charism of infallibility would be granted to him at the instant of his acceptation.

- Pope Pius XII, Address to the Second World Congress of the Lay Apostolate, 5 October 1957

Now this thesis judges that John XXIII and Paul VI lacked this intention at the moment of their acceptance; but this is merely an assertion. They must prove this assertion according to the very criterion which they themselves derive from Pope Leo XIII. They must show, according to the criterion of Pope Leo XIII, that John XXIII and Paul VI manifested an external act at the moment of accepting the papacy which indicated that they lacked the proper papal intention.

Proof of the Minor: But the adherents of the Thesis do not have the ability to judge the internal intention of John XXIII and Paul VI at the moment of their acceptance.

It is entirely clear that none of the followers or defenders of the Thesis can prove that John XXIII or Paul VI, at the moment they accepted their election, performed any external act indicating a lack of proper papal intention. On the contrary, they act precisely against the criterion laid down by Pope Leo XIII, by judging the internal intention of individuals without any external manifestation!

Objection: The suspicion of heresy surrounding John XXIII prior to his election as pope, the statements of John XXIII in 1959 regarding the need to revise the laws concerning the structure of the Church, and the approval of the Second Vatican Council by Paul VI, can prove that they lacked the proper objective intention.

Response: These matters can only indicate a lack of proper intention at those later times, not at the moment of their acceptance of the papal election. There is a significant temporal gap between these events and the moment of their acceptance of the papacy, and there is no logical or canonical reason to extend the lack of intention back to the moment of acceptance. Even a temporal gap of one day — or even one hour — before or after acceptance is insufficient; for it is entirely possible that at the very moment of accepting the office, the individual truly possessed the proper objective intention. And as Pope Leo XIII teaches, without an external manifestation we have no right to judge the internal intention of individuals.

Therefore, when they cannot demonstrate any external manifestation contrary to proper papal intention at the moment of acceptance by John XXIII and Paul VI, they cannot, according to the criterion of Pope Leo XIII, prove or judge a lack of papal intention at the moment of acceptance. In reality, the teaching of Pope Leo XIII operates against this thesis, not in its support. Consequently, this thesis — which is entirely based on a judgment concerning internal intention without any observable external manifestation — is completely false and contrary to the teaching of Pope Leo XIII.

**********************

Refutation 6

Major: For the thesis to be true, it must not be self-contradictory.

Minor: But the thesis is self-contradictory.

Conclusion: Therefore, the thesis is not true.

*

Proof of the Major: For the thesis to be true, it must not be self-contradictory.

The major is self-evident: if the premises of a thesis are such that they contradict one another, then a premise which supports one aspect of the thesis simultaneously negates another aspect of the same thesis, and as a result the thesis must ultimately be false.

Proof of the Minor: But the thesis is self-contradictory.

This contradiction returns to their principal argument used to justify the non-conferral of papal authority by God upon the elected pope. They argue that because the elected popes possess an objective intention to impose the new religion of Vatican II, God therefore does not confer papal authority upon them. As we read:

The Vatican II “popes” are not true popes since they posit an obstacle to the reception the authority of Christ. … What is this obstacle to authority? It is the intention of promulgating to the whole Church. false doctrines, false liturgy, and evil disciplines, all of which constitute an essential change of the Catholic Faith. … So someone who is legally designated to be pope, but who intends essential evil for the Church, cannot receive the authority of Christ to rule, and remains a pope-elect.

- Bp. Sanborn, Explanation of the Thesis of Bishop Guerard Des Lauriers, [29 June 2002], p. 5

*

John XXIII was elected pope in 1958. By a defect, however, the authority, which is invisible and which is given by Christ the Head of the Church, was never transferred to John XXIII and his successors. What was this defect? It is that they intended to pervert the Church. This evil intention is what has blocked the flow of authority from Christ into them.

- Bp. Sanborn, Ecclesiastical Materialism, pp. 2, 3

*

7. …The Thesis argues that a pope-elect who intends to impose false doctrines upon the Church (such as the Vatican II errors) does not intend to properly fulfill the obligations attached to the papal office and therefore cannot be the pope formally, i.e., with authority, until he removes this voluntary obstacle.

- Rev. Nicolás E. Despósito, The Little Catechism on the Thesis

As can be observed, the argument of the thesis for the non-conferral of authority by God upon the Novus Ordo popes is the lack of proper papal intention and the presence of an objective intention to impose the new religion of Vatican II upon the Church. This argument apparently supports this aspect of the thesis, namely, why the Novus Ordo popes, despite being elected, do not receive authority from God.

The foundation of this argument is as follows: if a person has an internal intention to use an authority for the purpose of destroying the Church, then God, who knows his intention, does not grant him that authority.

Regardless of whether this argument is correct in itself or not, if this argument is accepted, that same argument can be employed against another aspect of the thesis. The thesis claims that the existence of Novus Ordo cardinals is necessary for the election of a pope, and that since they cannot receive the authority to designate a pope from the Novus Ordo pope — because he himself lacks any jurisdiction whatsoever — Christ, by necessity, directly grants authority to these cardinals. As we read:

10. … “Vatican II popes” are able to appoint cardinals not with ordinary power which they lack by reason of an obstacle, but with supplied power, which Christ directly grants to them for those acts which are absolutely necessary for the Church to continue existing and functioning. One of those necessary acts is the appointment of papal electors. Perpetual successors of Peter demand perpetual electors of Peter. When there is no pope, the papacy remains, in a sense, in the College of Cardinals, since the cardinals are able to produce the matter, i.e., the subject recipient of authority (form).

- Rev. Nicolás E. Despósito, The Little Catechism on the Thesis

Now we use the argument of the thesis itself against the thesis. According to the thesis, the reason God does not grant authority to the elected Novus Ordo pope is his objective intention to impose the new religion of Vatican II. Now, if this argument is valid, we likewise say that since the cardinals of the Novus Ordo sect also possess the objective intention of designating a pope who supports and defends the new religion of Vatican II for the Church — and not the intention of designating a Catholic pope opposed to the new religion of Vatican II — this lack of proper intention and the presence of a contrary objective intention prevent God from granting authority to the Novus Ordo cardinals.

Just as the act of accepting the papal office must be performed with a proper objective intention in order to result in the conferral of papal authority by God, so too the act of designating a pope by the Novus Ordo cardinals must be performed with a proper objective intention in order to result in the conferral of the authority to designate by God.

Proving the existence of such an objective intention — namely, the intention to designate a pope who supports and defends the new religion of Vatican II — on the part of the Novus Ordo cardinals is not difficult. The Novus Ordo cardinals, even the most conservative among them, are ardent defenders of the Second Vatican Council, and they manifest this externally. Certainly, none of the Novus Ordo cardinals would be willing to elect a person who is opposed to the new religion of Vatican II. Undoubtedly, if those cardinals were forced to choose between His Excellency Bishop Sanborn and “Cardinal” Victor Manuel Fernández as pope, nearly all of them would vote for Cardinal Fernández, solely because His Excellency Bishop Sanborn is opposed to the new religion of Vatican II.

Therefore, as can be seen, the arguments of this thesis are such that they contradict the thesis itself. The argument based on objective intention may support one aspect of the thesis, but at the same time it operates against another aspect of the thesis, and it can thus be said that the thesis is self-contradictory. And if a thesis is self-contradictory, it cannot be true.

**********************

Refutation 7

Major: For the thesis to be true, it must not violate the dogma of the perpetuity of Apostolic Succession.

Minor: But the thesis violates the dogma of the perpetuity of Apostolic Succession.

Conclusion: Therefore, the thesis is not true.

*

Proof of the Major: For the thesis to be true, it must not violate the dogma of the perpetuity of Apostolic Succession.

We know that one truth cannot be contrary to another truth; as we read:

23. …Truth cannot contradict truth.

- Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 18 November 1893

Now, one of the truths of the Catholic religion is that the Church of Christ is apostolic, and this Apostolic Succession is perpetual. One of the threefold manifestations of Apostolic Succession is “apostolicity in succession,” or mission, or government, or authority; that is, the Church of Christ is always governed by persons who possess the threefold powers of the Apostles. In this regard we read:

Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess. Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession.

- Charles George Herbermann, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Appleton, vol. 1, [1907], p. 648

*

The Church must have a legitimate, or formal, succession of pastors to transmit apostolic authority from age to age.

- Elwood Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ, B. Herder Book Company, [1927], p. 140

*

Christ grouped the Apostles in a body, and these in their turn prepared successors for themselves so that the hierarchy should go on without interruption. … Thus beside their horizontal transmission in time we must consider their continuing dependence on the supra-temporal causes ceaselessly maintaining them in being. So it is with the power of order, which is strictly instrumental. So it is also with the power of jurisdiction-for though it functions as a second cause, yet beside the dependence in which all second causes stand with respect to the First Cause, it needs for its existence to be unceasingly superelevated and directed by divine motions of a new order.

- Charles Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate, vol. I, Sheed and Ward, [1954], p. 499

*

There would always be in the Church a body of men invested with that threefold power which the apostles enjoyed. This thesis is a dogma of faith, as we know, e.g., from the Council of Trent, Sess. 23, с. 4 (DB 960). … Apostolicity of government-or mission, or authority — means the Church is always ruled by pastors who form one same juridical person with the apostles. In other words it is always ruled by pastors who are the apostles’ legitimate successors.

- Msgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, vol. II: Christ’s Church, The Newman Press, [1959], p. 37 & 151

*

306. Part 2: The Hierarchy in the Church necessarily will be perennial. For the Hierarchy in the Church to be perennial, two things are required: 1) That the hierarchical office itself be perennial, that is, that the threefold power of teaching, sanctifying and governing, instituted by Christ, be perennial in the Church. … In the Church the hierarchical office itself necessarily will be perennial, because, according to the absolute promise of Christ, the powers instituted by himself are to be exercised perennially under the efficacious assistance of Christ and of the Holy Spirit in the Church; and this is to be done forever, until the end of the world and until the Lord comes to judge all men.

- Joachim Salaverri, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa, vol. IB, Keep the Faith, [2017], p. 119

Therefore, if the Thesis is to be true, it should not conflict with this dogma.

Proof of the Minor: But the thesis violates the dogma of the perpetuity of Apostolic Succession.

The thesis certainly violates Apostolic Succession and apostolicity in succession.

The thesis correctly holds that the Novus Ordo hierarchy lacks jurisdiction and authority; as we read:

what is left of the authority of the Church in the Novus Ordo is merely the material or visible aspect of authority, that is, persons designated to receive authority. What is lacking to them is the divine authority, and the divine assistance which necessarily accompanies it. The invisible assistance of the Holy Ghost is not with the Modernist “popes” and “bishops. They have no authority to rule.

- Bp. Sanborn, Ecclesiastical Materialism, pp. 2, 3

*

1. … the present-day Catholic hierarchy being deprived of the power to rule the Church. Authority, or ecclesiastical jurisdiction, is the public power of governing and leading the faithful towards the goal of eternal life. THE THESIS claims that the current occupant of the See of Peter, although validly elected, has not received papal authority by reason of an obstacle.

- Rev. Nicolás E. Despósito, The Little Catechism on the Thesis

On the other hand, however, it incorrectly claims that traditional Catholic bishops also lack any jurisdiction or authority whatsoever; as we read:

14. … Sedevacantist bishops have no link whatsoever to the hierarchy of jurisdiction and therefore have no right nor power to make juridical decisions in the Catholic Church.

- Rev. Nicolás E. Despósito, The Little Catechism on the Thesis

In order to remain faithful to their thesis, they are compelled to make such a claim; because if they were to admit that traditional Catholic bishops possess some kind of universal jurisdiction, and are members of the College of Bishops (as taught by Bolgeni and Dom Gréa), then the Cassiciacum Thesis would no longer be necessary. And once this thesis ceases to be necessary, its premises — which are built upon necessity — collapse.

Therefore, according to the thesis, the Church has for decades lost apostolicity in succession; for decades the threefold powers, the Successors of Apostles and the College of Bishops have been extinguished, and the Church is no longer governed by persons who possess the powers of the Apostles. Acceptance of the Cassiciacum Thesis is equivalent to the rejection of Apostolic Succession in the Church. Since we have seen that perpetual Apostolic Succession is a truth, and that the Cassiciacum Thesis is in conflict with that truth, and since truth cannot be opposed to truth, we conclude that the thesis is not true.

Objection: Having a material hierarchy and a material succession is sufficient for the continuation of Apostolic Succession in the Church, because once the obstacle is removed, they will receive jurisdiction.

Response: To answer this objection, we appeal to His Excellency Bishop Sanborn himself. He says:

Material succession is to succeed to a position of power, without receiving the power… The Novus Ordo “popes” have material succession. … they have no jurisdiction.

- Bp. Sanborn, Explanation of the Thesis of Bishop Guerard Des Lauriers, [29 June 2002], pp. 3, 4

As we have seen, according to the teaching of theologians, the criterion of apostolicity in succession, or of authority in the Church, is not material succession; rather, the criterion is formal succession, and the presence in the Church of persons who possess the powers of the Apostles. The Church must always be governed by persons who have authority. This is a teaching given by theologians, and His Excellency Bishop Sanborn himself acknowledges it:

It is necessary that the Catholic Church have an apostolic continuity which is both formal and material, in order that it adequately retain apostolicity.

- Bp. Sanborn, On Being Pope Materially Second Part: Explanation of The Thesis, p. 1

In addition, we read:

This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal.

- Charles George Herbermann, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Appleton, vol. 1, [1907], p. 648

*

A material successor is one who assumes the official position of another contrary to the laws or constitution of the society in question. He may be called a successor in as much as he actually holds the position, but he has no authority, and his acts have no official value, … the Church must have a legitimate, or formal, succession of pastors to transmit apostolic authority from age to age.

- Elwood Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ, B. Herder Book Company, [1927], pp. 139, 140

*

A purely physical succession proves nothing at all … Any man, then, who boasts of apostolic succession but is not united to the Roman pontiff, may indeed actually possess the power of orders; he may even by purely physical succession occupy a chair formerly occupied by an apostle-at least he could do so-but he would not be a genuine successor of the apostles in their pastoral office. He would be a usurper.

- Msgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, vol. II: Christ’s Church, The Newman Press, [1959], p. 153

But, as we have observed, the thesis does not conform to this situation; because it holds that today there is no one in the Church who possesses the powers of the Apostles. According to this thesis, neither the Novus Ordo hierarchy has authority, nor do traditional Catholic bishops; neither the Novus Ordo hierarchy are legitimate successors of the Apostles, nor are traditional Catholic bishops.

**********************

Refutation 8

Major: For the thesis to be true, it must not be in conflict with the Church as a true society.

Minor: But the thesis is in conflict with the Church as a true society.

Conclusion: Therefore, the thesis is not true.

*

Proof of the Major: For the thesis to be true, it must not be in conflict with the Church as a true society.

We know that one truth cannot be contrary to another truth; as we read:

23. …Truth cannot contradict truth.

- Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 18 November 1893

Now, one of the truths of the Catholic faith is that the Church of Christ is a true society. In this regard, we read the following condemned proposition in the Syllabus of Errors:

19. The Church is not a true and perfect society absolutely free, nor does it operate by its own fixed and proper rights conferred on it by its divine founder.

- Pope Pius IX, Syllabus Errorum, 8 December 1864

In addition, we read:

8. … The Only-begotten Son of God established on earth a society called the Church.

- Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1 November 1885

But for the Church to be a true society, certain conditions are required, the most important of which is the existence of authority; as we read below:

The first obvious requisite in all society is authority.

- Charles George Herbermann, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Appleton, vol. XIV, [1912], p. 74

*

Practically speaking, authority is the formal element of every society. … From the above considerations we deduce the following conditions necessary for a society: … e) adequate authority. These five conditions are essential and sufficient to constitute a society. … §3. Christ Personally Founded His Church as a Society. It is an article of faith that Christ personally established a church under the form of a true society visibly existing among men. … The founder of a society need only formulate the necessary plans and authorize suitable persons to put them into execution. Christ did this in regard to the Church, when He instituted the Apostolic ministry, sending forth the Apostles with authority to teach, govern, and sanctify, and obliged all men to submit to their threefold authority. … All the requisites for a true society were fully realized,-superiors endowed with adequate authority, subjects constituted by a special. rite of initiation and brought together in a unity of government, faith, and worship.

- Elwood Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ, B. Herder Book Company, [1927], pp. 16–24

Likewise, in the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, in the section The Ninth Article of the Creed, we read:

21 Q. What is the constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ?

A. The Church of Jesus Christ has been constituted as a true and perfect Society; and in her we can distinguish a soul and a body.

23 Q. In what does the Body of the Church consist?

A. The Body of the Church consists in her external and visible aspect, that is, in the association of her members, in her worship, in her teaching-power and in her external rule and government.

Therefore, the existence of authority is an essential element of the existence of a true society. In this regard, Pope Pius XII also states:

65. We therefore deplore and condemn also the calamitous error which invents an imaginary Church, a society nurtured and shaped by charity, with which it disparagingly contrasts another society which it calls juridical. Those who make this totally erroneous distinction fail to understand that it was one and the same purpose-namely, that of perpetuating on this earth the salutary work of the Redemption-which caused the divine Redeemer both to give the community of human beings founded by him the constitution of a society perfect in its own order, provided with all its juridical and social elements, and also, with the same end in view, to have it enriched by the Holy Spirit with heavenly gifts and powers.

- Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 29 June 1943

Proof of the Minor: But the thesis is in conflict with the Church as a true society.

The thesis is certainly in conflict with the Church as a true society;

The thesis correctly holds that the Novus Ordo hierarchy lacks jurisdiction and authority; as we read:

what is left of the authority of the Church in the Novus Ordo is merely the material or visible aspect of authority, that is, persons designated to receive authority. What is lacking to them is the divine authority, and the divine assistance which necessarily accompanies it. The invisible assistance of the Holy Ghost is not with the Modernist “popes” and “bishops. They have no authority to rule.

- Bp. Sanborn, Ecclesiastical Materialism, pp. 2, 3

*

1. … the present-day Catholic hierarchy being deprived of the power to rule the Church. Authority, or ecclesiastical jurisdiction, is the public power of governing and leading the faithful towards the goal of eternal life. THE THESIS claims that the current occupant of the See of Peter, although validly elected, has not received papal authority by reason of an obstacle.

- Rev. Nicolás E. Despósito, The Little Catechism on the Thesis

On the other hand, however, it incorrectly claims that traditional Catholic bishops also lack any jurisdiction or authority whatsoever; as we read:

14. … Sedevacantist bishops have no link whatsoever to the hierarchy of jurisdiction and therefore have no right nor power to make juridical decisions in the Catholic Church.

- Rev. Nicolás E. Despósito, The Little Catechism on the Thesis

In order to remain faithful to their thesis, they are compelled to make such a claim; because if they were to admit that traditional Catholic bishops possess some kind of universal jurisdiction, and are members of the College of Bishops (as taught by Bolgeni and Dom Gréa), then the Cassiciacum Thesis would no longer be necessary. And once this thesis ceases to be necessary, its premises — which are built upon necessity — collapse.

therefore, according to the thesis, for decades the Church has no longer been a true society; for decades authority — being the principal element of a society — has no longer existed in the Church. Acceptance of the Cassiciacum Thesis is equivalent to the denial of the Church as a true society. Since we have seen that the Church as a true society is a truth, and the Cassiciacum Thesis is in conflict with that truth, and since truth cannot be in conflict with truth, we therefore conclude that the thesis is not true.

Objection: The possession of a material hierarchy and material succession is sufficient for the continuation of the Church as a true society, because once the obstacle is removed, they will receive jurisdiction.

Response: This objection has been answered in Refutation no. 7.

**********************

Refutation 9

Major: For the thesis to be true, it must not be in conflict with the Church of Christ as a hierarchical society.

Minor: But the thesis is in conflict with the Church of Christ as a hierarchical society.

Conclusion: Therefore, the thesis is not true.

*

Proof of the Major: For the thesis to be true, it must not be in conflict with the Church of Christ as a hierarchical society.

We know that one truth cannot be contrary to another truth; as we read:

23. …Truth cannot contradict truth.

- Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 18 November 1893

Now, one of the truths of the Catholic faith is that the Church of Christ is a hierarchical society; in this regard we read:

II. The Church of Christ is a Hierarchical Society. Catholic teaching holds that Christ Himself established a sacred authority in His Church, and that this authority, invested first in the apostolic college, was uninterruptedly perpetuated, and in fact perdures today in the college of bishops.

- Msgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, vol. II: Christ’s Church, The Newman Press, [1959], p. 31

*

Christ gave His Church an hierarchical constitution. (De fide.) The hierarchical magisterial powers of the Church embrace the teaching power, the pastoral power (-legislative, juridical and punitive power), and the sacerdotal power.

- Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, St. Louis, Mo., B. Herder Book Co, [1954], pp. 274

*

Thus Christ grouped the Apostles in a body, and these in their turn prepared successors for themselves so that the hierarchy should go on without interruption. … Thus beside their horizontal transmission in time we must consider their continuing dependence on the supra-temporal causes ceaselessly maintaining them in being. So it is with the power of order, which is strictly instrumental. So it is also with the power of jurisdiction-for though it functions as a second cause, yet beside the dependence in which all second causes stand with respect to the First Cause, it needs for its existence to be unceasingly superelevated and directed by divine motions of a new order.

- Charles Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate, vol. I, Sheed and Ward, [1954], p. 499

*

306. Part 2: The Hierarchy in the Church necessarily will be perennial. For the Hierarchy in the Church to be perennial, two things are required: 1) That the hierarchical office itself be perennial, that is, that the threefold power of teaching, sanctifying and governing, instituted by Christ, be perennial in the Church. … In the Church the hierarchical office itself necessarily will be perennial, because, according to the absolute promise of Christ, the powers instituted by himself are to be exercised perennially under the efficacious assistance of Christ and of the Holy Spirit in the Church; and this is to be done forever, until the end of the world and until the Lord comes to judge all men.

- Joachim Salaverri, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa, vol. IB, Keep the Faith, [2017], p. 119

Minor: But the thesis is in conflict with the Church of Christ as a hierarchical society.

The thesis is certainly in conflict with the Church as a hierarchical society;

The thesis correctly holds that the Novus Ordo hierarchy lacks jurisdiction and authority; as we read:

what is left of the authority of the Church in the Novus Ordo is merely the material or visible aspect of authority, that is, persons designated to receive authority. What is lacking to them is the divine authority, and the divine assistance which necessarily accompanies it. The invisible assistance of the Holy Ghost is not with the Modernist “popes” and “bishops. They have no authority to rule.

- Bp. Sanborn, Ecclesiastical Materialism, pp. 2, 3

*

1. … the present-day Catholic hierarchy being deprived of the power to rule the Church. Authority, or ecclesiastical jurisdiction, is the public power of governing and leading the faithful towards the goal of eternal life. THE THESIS claims that the current occupant of the See of Peter, although validly elected, has not received papal authority by reason of an obstacle.

- Rev. Nicolás E. Despósito, The Little Catechism on the Thesis

On the other hand, however, it incorrectly claims that traditional Catholic bishops also lack any jurisdiction or authority whatsoever; as we read:

14. … Sedevacantist bishops have no link whatsoever to the hierarchy of jurisdiction and therefore have no right nor power to make juridical decisions in the Catholic Church.

- Rev. Nicolás E. Despósito, The Little Catechism on the Thesis

In order to remain faithful to their thesis, they are compelled to make such a claim; because if they were to admit that traditional Catholic bishops possess some kind of universal jurisdiction, and are members of the College of Bishops (as taught by Bolgeni and Dom Gréa), then the Cassiciacum Thesis would no longer be necessary. And once this thesis ceases to be necessary, its premises — which are built upon necessity — collapse.

therefore, according to the thesis, for decades the Church has no longer been a hierarchical society; The hierarchy of governance and the threefold powers have been completely obliterated. Acceptance of the Cassiciacum Thesis is equivalent to the denial of the Church as a hierarchical society. Since we have seen that the Church as a hierarchical society is a truth, and the Cassiciacum Thesis is in conflict with that truth, and since truth cannot be in conflict with truth, we therefore conclude that the thesis is not true.

Objection: The possession of a material hierarchy and material succession is sufficient for the continuation of the Church’s hierarchy, because once the impediment is removed, they will receive jurisdiction.

Response: This objection has been answered in Refutation no. 7.

**********************

Refutation 10

Major Premise: For the thesis to be true, it must not be in conflict with the visibility of the Church.

Minor Premise: But the thesis is in conflict with the visibility of the Church.

Conclusion: Therefore, the thesis is not true.

*

Proof of the Major: For the thesis to be true, it must not be in conflict with the visibility of the Church.

We know that one truth cannot be contrary to another truth; as we read:

23. …Truth cannot contradict truth.

- Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 18 November 1893

Now, one of the truths of the Catholic faith is that the Church of Christ is a visible society. The visibility of the Church has various aspects; one of these aspects is that the Church is visible in her governance; as His Excellency Bishop Sanborn himself states:

The Roman Catholic Church has a visible aspect and an invisible aspect What is visible is the external profession of faith, the administration of the sacraments, and the visible government.

- Bp. Sanborn, Ecclesiastical Materialism, p. 2

In this regard, we read:

When we say that the Church of Christ is visible, we mean, primarily, that it is a society of men with external rites and ceremonies and all the external machinery of government by which it can easily be recognized as a true society.

- Elwood Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ, B. Herder Book Company, [1927], p. 69

*

By the “body of the Church” is meant what is visible in the Church and makes the Church herself visible namely, the faithful themselves in so far as they are one body, also external forms of government, external authority, outward profession of faith, the administration of the Sacraments, ritual worship, etc.

- Peter Cardinal Gasparri, The Catholic Catechism, P. J. Kenedy & Sons, [1932], p. 99

*

Christ Himself founded a living organization, a visible Church. Granted that fact, it should be obvious that an essential part of that Church’s structure is apostolicity of government. For on no one but the apostolic college under the headship of Peter, did Christ confer the power of teaching, sanctifying, and ruling the faithful until the end of the world This triple power, therefore, necessarily belongs, and can only belong, to those who form one moral person with the apostles: their legitimate successors.

- Msgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, vol. II: Christ’s Church, The Newman Press, [1959], pp. 151, 152

*

This visible hierarchy, one and indissoluble, unique and apostolic, penetrated by a spiritual virtue coming from Christ and flowing from the inner most life of God, fashions in the world the visible Church, one and indissoluble, unique, and apostolic.

- Charles Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate, vol. I, Sheed and Ward, [1954], p. 497

*

He has further willed that all the members of that Mystical Body should be members of the visible, organised hierarchical society to which he has given the power of teaching, ruling, and sanctifying.

- George D. Smith, The Teaching of the Catholic Church, The Macmillan Company, vol. II, [1961], p. 662

Pope Pius XII in this regard states:

64. From what We have thus far written and explained, Venerable Brethren, it is clear, We think, how grievously they err who arbitrarily claim that the Church is something hidden and invisible, as they also do who look upon her as a mere human institution possessing a certain disciplinary code and external ritual, but lacking power to communicate supernatural life. On the contrary, as Christ, Head and Exemplar of the Church “is not complete, if only His visible human nature is considered. . ., or if only His divine, invisible nature…, but He is one through the union of both and one in both . . . so is it with His Mystical Body” since the Word of God took unto Himself a human nature liable to sufferings, so that He might consecrate in His blood the visible Society founded by Him and “lead man back to things invisible under a visible rule.”

65. For this reason We deplore and condemn the pernicious error of those who dream of an imaginary Church, a kind of society that finds its origin and growth in charity, to which, somewhat contemptuously, they oppose another, which they call juridical. But this distinction which they introduce is false.

- Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 29 June 1943

Proof of the Minor: But the thesis is in conflict with the visibility of the Church.

The thesis is certainly in conflict with the visibility of the Church;

The thesis correctly holds that the Novus Ordo hierarchy lacks jurisdiction and authority; as we read:

what is left of the authority of the Church in the Novus Ordo is merely the material or visible aspect of authority, that is, persons designated to receive authority. What is lacking to them is the divine authority, and the divine assistance which necessarily accompanies it. The invisible assistance of the Holy Ghost is not with the Modernist “popes” and “bishops. They have no authority to rule.

- Bp. Sanborn, Ecclesiastical Materialism, pp. 2, 3

*

1. … the present-day Catholic hierarchy being deprived of the power to rule the Church. Authority, or ecclesiastical jurisdiction, is the public power of governing and leading the faithful towards the goal of eternal life. THE THESIS claims that the current occupant of the See of Peter, although validly elected, has not received papal authority by reason of an obstacle.

- Rev. Nicolás E. Despósito, The Little Catechism on the Thesis

On the other hand, however, it incorrectly claims that traditional Catholic bishops also lack any jurisdiction or authority whatsoever; as we read:

14. … Sedevacantist bishops have no link whatsoever to the hierarchy of jurisdiction and therefore have no right nor power to make juridical decisions in the Catholic Church.

- Rev. Nicolás E. Despósito, The Little Catechism on the Thesis

In order to remain faithful to their thesis, they are compelled to make such a claim; because if they were to admit that traditional Catholic bishops possess some kind of universal jurisdiction, and are members of the College of Bishops (as taught by Bolgeni and Dom Gréa), then the Cassiciacum Thesis would no longer be necessary. And once this thesis ceases to be necessary, its premises — which are built upon necessity — collapse.

therefore, according to the thesis, for decades the Church has no longer been a visible society; for decades the Church has lacked visible governance. The hierarchy and the college of the Apostles as the visible rulers of the Church, and the threefold powers and external authority, have been completely extinguished. Acceptance of the Cassiciacum Thesis is equivalent to denying the Church as a visible society. Since we have seen that the Church as a visible society is a truth, and the Cassiciacum Thesis is in conflict with that truth, and since truth cannot be opposed to truth, we therefore conclude that the thesis is not true.

Objection: The possession of a material hierarchy and material succession is sufficient for the visibility of the Church, because once the obstacle is removed, they will receive jurisdiction.

Response: This objection has been answered in Refutation no. 7.

**********************

Refutation 11

Major: For the thesis to be true, it must not be in conflict with the Gospel and the promises of Christ.

Minor: But the thesis is in conflict with the Gospel and the promises of Christ.

Conclusion: Therefore, the thesis is not true.

*

Proof of the Major: For the thesis to be true, it must not be in conflict with the Gospel and the promises of Christ.

We know that one truth cannot be contrary to another truth; as we read:

23. …Truth cannot contradict truth.

- Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 18 November 1893

On the other hand, we know that nothing is truer than the Gospel and the promises of Christ. Now Christ promised the perpetual and continuous assistance of the Holy Ghost to the Church through lawful pastors; as we read:

But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall shew you. (John 16:13)

*

Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Matt 28:19–20)

Concerning these promises we read:

The Catholic Church, instructed by our Lord Jesus Christ himself and by his Apostles, and taught by the “Holy Spirit who day by day brings to her all truth” [John 14:26]

- Council of Trent, Session XIII, 2 October 1551, (Denz. 873)

*

In His Church He wished the pastors and the doctors to be “even to the consummation of the world” [ Matt. 28:20].

- First Vatican Council, Session IV, 18 July 1870, (Denz. 1821)

The meaning of these passages — especially in light of the dogmatic texts of the councils — is clear: Christ promised His Church the perpetual assistance of the Holy Ghost through pastors, and for this purpose pastors are necessary as the instruments of the action of the Holy Ghost in the Church. as we read:

In the Church the hierarchical office itself necessarily will be perennial, because, according to the absolute promise of Christ, the powers instituted by himself are to be exercised perennially under the efficacious assistance of Christ and of the Holy Spirit in the Church; and this is to be done forever, until the end of the world and until the Lord comes to judge all men.

- Joachim Salaverri, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa, vol. IB, Keep the Faith, [2017], p. 119

Proof of the Minor: But the thesis is in conflict with the Gospel and the promises of Christ.

As we saw in Refutation №7, according to the thesis, neither the Novus Ordo hierarchy are true pastors and members of the Church’s episcopal college, nor are the traditional Catholic bishops; for this reason, for decades the Church has been deprived of the promised perpetual assistance of the Holy Ghost. This is not merely our inference; it is something explicitly admitted by the defenders of the thesis themselves:

The Roman Catholic Church has a visible aspect and an invisible aspect; … What is invisible is the grace and assistance of the Holy Ghost which infuses the virtues of faith, hope, and charity, the authority to govern, and the indelible character on the soul in Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders. The Holy Ghost, furthermore, assists the Church by an invisible influence in its promulgation of doctrine, morals, liturgy, and discipline, in such a way that these things are free from error. It is this invisible assistance which guarantees the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church. All of these qualities are invisible, but are nonetheless what make the Catholic Church the one, true Church of Jesus Christ.

- Bp. Sanborn, Ecclesiastical Materialism, p. 2

*

what is left of the authority of the Church in the Novus Ordo is merely the material or visible aspect of authority, that is, persons designated to receive authority. What is lacking to them is the divine authority, and the divine assistance which necessarily accompanies it.

- Bp. Sanborn, Ecclesiastical Materialism, p. 2

*

That the authority of Christ and the assistance of the Holy Ghost are lacking can be seen from the Hiroshima effect of Vatican II. The Novus Ordo religion essentially Modernism has wrecked all of the institutions of the Catholic Church. What is left is only a lifeless shell of these institutions … What we are seeing here, however, is merely carcass of the Church’s authority. It is something like a dead whale which has washed up on the shore. These institutions, both the buildings and the government, constitute, from a purely material and visible point view, a continuity with the past Internally and invisibly, however, they are full of doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary corruption. … They see only the material side of the Church, its visible side, and turn a blind eye to the absence of the invisibles of the Church, especially the assistance of the Holy Ghost in keeping the Church free from error and defection.

- Bp. Sanborn, Ecclesiastical Materialism, p. 3

*

The above statements are perfectly clear: the invisible elements of the Church, including the perpetual assistance of the Holy Ghost, have not existed in the Church for decades. Therefore, according to the thesis, Christ has not been with His Church always and on all days; the Holy Ghost has not guided the Church every day into all truth. In a word, according to the thesis, Christ has been a liar! But we know that Christ is truthful, and it is the thesis that is entirely false.

Objection: It is true that the assistance of the Holy Ghost is temporarily absent, but once the obstacle is removed, that material hierarchy will receive jurisdiction and the Church will once again obtain this assistance.

Response: This response is not convincing; under these conditions, they may indeed obtain once again the assistance of the Holy Ghost, but nevertheless Christ has not been with the Church “all days” for decades, and the Holy Ghost has not taught the Church all truth on “all days”. Even with this justification, Christ’s promise would be false.

**********************

Refutation 12

Major: For the thesis to be true, it must not be in conflict with the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church.

Minor: But the thesis is in conflict with the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church.

Conclusion: Therefore, the thesis is not true.

*

Proof of the Major: For the thesis to be true, it must not be in conflict with the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church.

We know that one truth cannot be contrary to another truth; as we read:

23. …Truth cannot contradict truth.

- Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 18 November 1893

Now, one of the truths of the Catholic faith is that the Church is indefectible. Concerning the definition and the conditions of the indefectibility of the Church, we read:

Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men.

- Charles George Herbermann, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Press, Incorporated, vol. III, [1913], p. 756

*

Indefectibility is inability to fail, to fall short, to perish. Applied to the Church, it means that she cannot be deprived of any essential power or quality so long as she continues to exist. … In other words, it means that the Church founded by Christ must exist until the end of time without any essential change. … Christ instituted the Church for the salvation of all men, and endowed it with certain powers and characteristics necessary for this work. If the Church should lose any one of these necessary qualifications, it would be incapable of doing what Christ intended it to do; in fact, it would cease to be the Church instituted by Him. Moreover, if the Church could fail in any of its essentials, even for a time, it would lose all authority to teach and to govern, because the faithful could never be certain at any time that it had not failed,- that it had not ceased to be the Church of Christ, thereby losing all authority.

- Elwood Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ, B. Herder Book Company, [1927], pp. 56, 60, 61

Proof of the Minor: But the thesis is in conflict with the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church.

As we saw in Refutation no. 9, the thesis is in conflict with the Church as a hierarchical society; yet hierarchical powers are necessarily connected with the indefectibility of the Church; as we read:

The perpetuation of the hierarchical powers follows necessarily on the indefectibility of the Church desired by Christ.

- Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, St. Louis, Mo., B. Herder Book Co, [1954], pp. 276

Likewise, as we observed in detail in Refutations nos. 7, 8, 10, and 11, the thesis is in conflict with apostolicity in succession, with the invisible elements of the Church, with the visibility of the Church, and with the Church as a true society.

In fact, according to the thesis, the Church — both the Novus Ordo part and the traditional part — has for decades no longer been the institution which Christ established. The institution founded by Christ was a true society, hierarchical, visible in its governance, endowed with apostolicity in succession, and possessing the continual assistance of the Holy Ghost. According to the thesis, for decades the Church has had none of these, and in fact it may be said that the Church has been completely extinguished; and this is precisely a denial of the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church.

Since the dogma of indefectibility is a truth of the Catholic faith, and the thesis is in conflict with it, and since truth cannot be opposed to truth, the thesis is therefore false.

*********************

We could add several further refutations to our twelve refutations; but for the sake of brevity we limit ourselves to these twelve, because in each one of them it is made abundantly clear that the Cassiciacum Thesis is nothing other than a set of falsehoods which must be avoided.

May God, through the intercession of Our Lady, grant sufficient humility to the clergy who defend and follow this thesis, so that, acknowledging the extensive and grave errors of the thesis, they may reject it and, together with the other Catholic bishops, take concrete action — in accordance with the teachings of the Doctors of the Church — to bring the Church out of this crisis.