Guerardist Difficulties

1. The official name of this theory is a "Thesis", as far as I know, and it has never been approved by the Church officially. Again, a "Thesis" is equivalent to a theory, in my understanding. Therefore, it remains, in my opinion, a mere theory.
   
   I have contended that the adoption of an originally pagan system of Philosophy, that of Aristotle, of the distinction of matter and form, does not justify the idea that it must be rigorously applied to all and any circumstance of the Church's life.
   
   That contention has not been disproved.



2. I have contented that Guerardism is eminently unneccessary an invention precisely because it provides by means of a mere theory for what the Church has actually already provided for by means of its specific legislations, and by much stronger provisions, beneficial to the Church, not exclusing Cum Ex, which, despite Mr. Case's contentions, has NOT been shown to have been abrogated, obrogated, annulled, etc.



3. It is curious that Mr. Case makes a claim that has been more famously been made by Mr. Brian Harrison, a 'priest' in the Antichurch, that Pius XII in his legislation 'Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis' lifted the excommunication of those Cardinals alleged to have been� excommunicated and permitting them to participate, and thus, obviously, to be elected, in the Conclaves.
   
   I have already attacked Mr. Harrison's claims. But I also notice that the Benns & Bawden book had already gone into this issue long before Mr. Harrison raised it, and showed that the text of Pius XII's document does not actually say this. What it does say, in my understanding, is that Cardinals who are accused of being Occult heretics are not to be excluded on suspicion.
   
   There is no innovation in this legislation, and moreover, it cannot justify Roncalli's participation and election, which is already forbidden by Cum Ex.
   
   I notice that, just as famously, Mr. Harrison has withdrawn for quite sometime, this article of his... ostensibly for revision. I await the revised version.



4. In latter posts, Mr. Case has justified Guerardism on the basis of Canon Law provisions for diocesan bishops. I am not familiar with Canon Law, as already stated. However, there seems to be something wrong with this claim. � We see in the history of the Church, that the Church has disregarded schismatic bishops and appointed others to the same position, effectively meaning that there are two (or more) bishops claiming the same sees.
   
   Thus, for example, there is a Schismatic and also a Catholic Patriarch of Contantinopolis, a number of Patriarchs of Antioch, etc., etc.
   
   Obviously enough, then, the Church did not see that the continued claim of a bishop departed into schism or of his schismatic successors impeded the operation of a Catholic bishop being invested with that flock, even if merely nominally.
   
   Again, it is my understanding that Canon Law provides for the tacit resignation of clerics, including those of bishops, for various stated reasons, such as Promotion or Schism, Heresy, etc.
   
   Thus, for example, a bishop promoted to an Archbishopric at another place and who assented but neglected to formally resign his previous see, is understood to have tacitly resigned.
   
   Obviously, then, his failing to formally resign has not impeded the entrance of another into that see, which the Church now judges as vacant, without making a formal declaration to that effect.
   
   Of course, in the present case, Mr. Case argues that the putative incumbent having vanished into heresy, needs to be formally declared or determined to have done so.
   
   That contention remains a mere contention.
   
   Mr. Case has not demonstrated any reason why we should disregard the teaching of the Church that persons who have apparently enough incurred ipso facto excommunication for proscribed acts listed by it, are therefore actually excommunicated and thus ineligible for offices in the Church, and further, disregarding the same legislations of the Church, that a declaration or determination that these persons have indeed departed is a necessary prerequisite to disregarding them.



5. Mr. Case has another contention that, in my understanding, rests purely and entirely upon his own say-so. He insists that only Romans can elect and or supply the Pope.
   
   I am aware that it is Church teaching that the right to elect the Pope passes from the Chapter of the Canons of the Cathedral of St. Peter on the Vatican to that of the Chapter of St. John on the Lateran, and then on to the lower clergy of Rome.
   
   I am also aware that the Church teaches that an Extra-Ordinary and Acephalous Council, in the precedence of Constance, can act to supply the Pope, without waiting upon the Romans to do so.
   
   What I do NOT see is how Mr. Case invests the Romans with the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE right to elect and supply the Pope, contending that as a result, non-Romans cannot post an Extra-Ordinary Election. Therefore, can Mr. Case� prove this claim from Church documents and teachings?
   
   Again, Mr. Case qualifies Constance by alleging that it could succeed only because it had a hope of being recognized by the Romans. That is something that I have not seen for myself in my rather limited reading of Church documents. Therefore, can Mr. Case also provide this?



6. Mr. Case kindly concurs with me that the Antipopes of Roman Modernism have NO value to us Catholics. However, despite his words, in my understanding of Mr. Case's belief, these antipopes DO have a value, in so far as they obstruct or impede the election of a true pope as long as they continue to claim the papacy.
   
   That is a considerable value... a continued infliction or sustainment of our privation of the true pope... a tacit exercise of a veto over Catholics obtaining a Catholic pope...



7. I note that much, if not all all of the Resistance, justifies their reception of the sacraments and of orders, by recourse to epikeia and to Canon 2261.2.
   
   I consider it RATHER curious that, in the mind of a great many, the Church has provided for the irregular reception of sacraments and orders but not for the election of a true pope, when it is obvious - and fundamental to Catholicism - that a Pope is not only essential to the day to day management of the Church, but also is radically essential for our salvation. (re. Unam Sanctam).
   
   I consider it RATHER curious that, in the mind of a great many, EPIKEIA exists solely and entirely in order to justify and exculpate such irregular reception of sacraments and of orders, AND to excuse souls from the urgency and necessity of procuring a true Pope, but NOT to procure a true Pope!
   
   In my humble opinion, this attitude stinks to the high heavens of heresy. � (I do not argue that the Papacy will be permitted by God to be vacant only for 40 years, or for a 140 years. I agree with Mr. John Lane, quoting Fr. O'Reilly, that God can permit a vacancy for a really long time. However, such a time, long or short, is always a privation, and is never to be understood as being part of the Positive Will of God, but rather of His Permissive Will. It is His Positive Will that such a privation be ended with celerity.)�



8. The election of Mr. Bawden as Pope fulfils the principles and precedence of Constance as laid out by the Catholic Encyclopedia.
   
   That is, the right to innovate; the right of the Church to always supply itself; the right of the Church to not suffer privation in the absence of a true and legitimate pope, but to prioritize the election of the Pope.