top of page
  • Writer's pictureFr. Vili Lehtoranta

Totalism vs. The Cassiciacum Thesis

Updated: Oct 31, 2022


At the end of October 2022, I was invited to be interviewed at the program named The Catholic Family Podcast, hosted by Mr. Kevin Davis. Mr. Davis had previously in March invited Bishop Donald Sanborn to speak about the Cassiciacum Thesis, aka. the Thesis of Bishop Guérard des Lauriers. Bishop Sanborn, who is the Rector of the Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Reading, Pennsylvania, is one of the most well-known proponent of the Thesis, together with Father Francesco Ricossa, the head of the Institute of the Mother of Good Counsel (IMBC) in Turin, Italy.

Since I myself had, ever since my ordination in 2011, worked closely with Bishop Daniel Dolan and Fr. Anthony Cekada, both of whom rejected the Thesis, and had also learned from them about some of the problems concerning it, I accepted the invitation of Mr. Davis to give a response to Bishop Sanborn’s interview. These objections, and the view which Fr. Cekada held, is generally called Totalism, meaning the total vacancy of the Holy See, and total rejection of the false church of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Mr. Davis and I had originally planned to do the interview in May, but because of Bishop Dolan’s untimely death in April, and the move of Most Holy Trinity Seminary from Florida to Pennsylvania, my interview was postponed to October. In this article I will give a comparison between the Thesis and Totalism, and present my objections to it in a more thorough form than I could do in the hour-long interview.

I. Is Thesis Sedevacantism?

Sedevacantism comes from the Latin words sede vacante, the see being vacant. The reason why the Church can be without a Pope for a long time, even for decades, is that the Pope is what is called the visible head of the Church,*1 while Christ is called the invisible Head.*2 So the Church is never a headless or imperfect Body, but always has Christ as her Head, even if she is occasionally devoid of her visible head, the Pope.

When is the Church, then, in the state of sede vacante? According to Fr. Umberto Benigni, professor of Church history and founder of the Sodalitium Pianum, papal sede vacante is a time “between the death of the pope and the election of his successor.”*3 This is the position of the Totalists, who maintain that the Holy See has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, because Angelo Roncalli was a modernist, was outside of the Catholic Church, and was thus in no way capable to receive the papacy, and also those who were elected to succeed him did not meet the necessary conditions for being a true or legitimate Pope.*4

The Thesis argument, on the other hand, is that the election of 2013, which chose Jorge Mario Bergoglio, aka. “Pope Francis”, was a true papal election, just like the election of 1903, which elected St. Pius X, was a true papal election. According to Father Damien Dutertre, one of the proponents of the Thesis, Bergoglio and his predecessors (and successors) “can validly elect and be elected in the Church” and that they are non-popes only because “they did not properly accept their election to the papacy.”*5 From this it follows, that our situation, in these times of Bergoglio, “is therefore not one of pure vacancy of the Roman See.”*6 Fr. Ricossa says it even more clearly: “The See is occupied by him, and cannot be occupied by someone else for as long as the election has not been declared null by the Church.”*7

Because of this, we Totalists do not see the supporters of the Thesis as real and true Sedevacantists. If there is a legitimate claimant who sits on the throne of St. Peter, and his election was valid, then we are not in the state of sede vacante as it was defined by Fr. Benigni.

II. Where is the Hierarchy Today?

The big thing which the Thesis supporters say makes it superior against Totalism is that the Thesis saves the continuation of apostolic hierarchy. They say that in the Totalist system this is gone.

First let us look at what apostolicity means. The definition is given by Fr. Jean-Vincent Bainvel (1858-1937), the dean of the faculty of theology of the Catholic Institute of Paris from 1913 to 1925:

It is, in fact, an obvious thing: the Church being a hierarchical social body, one must belong to this social body in order to share in the authority of its hierarchy. Without apostolic succession, the hierarchy is no longer that which Christ instituted: it is a human work; and even if the sacraments remained there, the authority would not be there; for the power of order does not of itself carry the power of jurisdiction: the latter is attached to the mission, to the legitimate succession. It is not enough to claim Christ, nor even to have the sacraments. We are his people, we are of his church (I speak externally) when we obey the pastors established by him, sent by him. It is therefore for a Church a capital question that of legitimate succession.*8

So from the very start, Bergoglio is disqualified as having anything to do with the continuation of hierarchy, because he is a heretic and an apostate, which, as we will see later, automatically excludes him from the Church membership. In other words, he doesn’t even have the bare minimum what it takes to be a legitimate possessor of continuation of hierarchy in the Church of Christ. The altar boys who serve my daily school Mass are more successors of Apostles than Bergoglio, for at least the altar boys are Catholics, while Bergoglio is not. As the Bishop, who is ordaining a Subdeacon, says in his instruction to the ordinand: “All that is not of faith is sin, and schism, and outside the unity of the Church.”*9

As we also see from the definition, anyone who claims to be a Catholic Bishop, must possess two things: 1) valid orders, and 2) the legality, or power of jurisdiction.

Fr. Cekada has amply presented his arguments that Bergoglio and his church do not possess valid orders.*10 Therefore, Bergoglio and his bishops are disqualified of having anything to do with the apostolicity of the Catholic Church already on two counts: 1) they are not Catholics, and 2) they do not possess valid orders.

Do Sedevacantist Bishops, who have the Catholic faith and valid orders, have jurisdiction, then? According to the Thesis, no. Fr. Nicolas Despósito, one of the professors of Most Holy Trinity Seminary, has written:

Sedevacantist bishops do not enjoy any title of jurisdiction. The supplied sacramental jurisdiction in the internal forum exercised per modum actus in Confession, must not be confused with the ordinary jurisdiction to govern the Church, which belongs to the external forum, is habitual and can only be granted by a Pope. Since sedevacantist bishops are not part of the material-legal hierarchy of the Church which is the basis for juridical status, and have no title (either true, colored or presumed) to jurisdiction to any territory, they do not have the right to represent the whole Church in a General Council. The only power that sedevacantist bishops have is the power of orders, which allows them to validly ordain priests and administer confirmation.*11

The Totalist position, on the other hand is, that without legality, any Bishop, Sedevacantist or otherwise, cannot be a true successor of Apostles. He would, in that case, not be a true Bishop, but a thief, as Our Lord says: “He that entereth not by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbeth up another way, he is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth by the door, is the Pastor of the sheep.”*12

But as the 1917 Code of Canon Law (CCL) defines, besides ordinary jurisdiction, which is had by the Pope and the diocesan Bishops, there is what is called delegated jurisdiction (which is not the same as supplied jurisdiction):

Ordinary power of jurisdiction is that which is attached to an office by law; delegated [power is that which] is committed to a person.*13

In the times when the Church has Popes, their legitimacy was proved with the mandatum, which was a papal document granting permission for the consecration of a Bishop who will serve as Bishop in any capacity, such auxiliary or titular Bishop. To the diocesan Bishops was granted the canonical appointment, which designated the Bishop as an ordinary or residential Bishop.*14 Since the mission of the Church to save souls is divine law, and the method how this mission is delegated throughout the times and places is merely a human law, the Traditional Catholic Bishops are not bound to “seek permission” from any modernist institution, or from any “material-legal hierarchy”. Instead, since Christ still remains the invisible Head of His Church, He, in the times when visible head is not had, grants legitimacy and obligation to each Bishop to both validly and legally “to judge, to interpret, to consecrate, to ordain, to offer sacrifice, to baptize and to confirm” as it is said in the rite of Episcopal Consecration. As Fr. Cekada put it: “This divine law always endures, together with the jurisdiction from Christ necessary to fulfill it.”15

I personally don’t know why any Traditional Catholic would have any problem with this. There is no Pope. There are no Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. Is one to presume that a human ecclesiastical law trumps the divine mission of Christ to do what Traditional priests and Bishops have now done for decades, namely establish churches and missions, where they give Sacraments and teaching to the faithful? So the answer to the question, “where is the hierarchy,” is, that it is in the Traditional Catholic Bishops, who have been validly and legally consecrated.

But even if someone would have a problem with this, that would not somehow make Thesis true by default. Because according to this Thesis, the hierarchy of Bergoglio, as Fr. Despósito puts it, “enjoys a legal status which can only be removed by a legal process.”*16 But this leads to the conundrum which is far worse than any possible problem which might be had with the position of the Traditional Bishops being the true hierarchy. If only the hierarchy of Bergoglio is legal, then the only logical conclusion is that the Sedevacantist priests and Bishops are illegal. There is no way the Thesis can get around this. If Bergoglio has power to designate where the legal succession continues, he has also to have the power to designate where it does not continue. And his church has done so by declaring as illegal those Traditionalist clerics who derive their orders from Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc:

Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination, and as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously, and the above-mentioned penal sanctions remain in force until repentance.*17

Of course no Thesis supporter would say that their orders or mission are illegal. But that is the only logical conclusion if one accepts the “material-legal hierarchy” theory. If this system can’t be applied logically, it shouldn’t be applied at all.

III. Where is the Catholic Church?

As we could already see from above, the Thesis supporters see the hierarchy of Bergoglio as legal. And they also argue, that Bergoglio’s church “is not a separate Church, but rather describes the phenomenon of modernist prelates attempting to impose on the Catholic Church their poisonous religion.”*18

Fr. Despósito puts it like this:

The term “official Church” should be understood here to mean the material hierarchy of the Catholic Church, which remains the same before and after Vatican II. It would be theologically erroneous – even heretical – to designate the present day hierarchy as the Catholic Church formally. Technically, Vatican II was the beginning of a new religion, but not of a new Church.*19

Here we see how the Thesis attempts to build its own alternative reality. Little bit like in nominalism, an idea “describes” some concept which doesn’t necessarily coincide with reality at all. Things are not how they look like. It also resembles Kantianism, where the “phenomenon” as our mind’s idea is really extinct from the thing itself, which our mind cannot grasp.*20

So in this made-up Thesis world, it might appear that this church organization of Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not the Catholic Church, but, against all sense-information, the true Church of Christ is still intact in it.*21

This is a concept which the Totalists reject completely. We say that the election of John XXIII in 1958 was the beginning of both new religion and a new church. Completely independently of anyone’s thoughts, the church organization of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, which is clearly a visible entity, either is the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e. the Catholic Church, or it is not. There is no third option. That’s why the opponents of the Thesis are called Totalists, because we totally reject the idea that this heretical sect of Bergoglio has anything to do with the true Church of Christ, either legally or in reality. Patrick Henry Omlor labelled this sect as the “Robber Church” and wrote:

For just how much “change” could the Catholic Church possibly undergo and still be the Church? Quite apparent for all to see are the frenzied efforts of the new robbers to destroy all ties and links with the past, to eradicate from memory all vestiges of the ancient, true, traditional Church. To think of the new Robber Church as the very same Catholic Church that it is so deliberately and painstakingly trying to wipe out of memory? Absurdity of absurdities!*22

And Mr. Omlor wrote these words in 1971! To see Vatican II Church as the same thing as the Catholic Church? Absurdity of absurdities. Unless one shares the mindset of one of our former presidents, who had difficulties to grasp the meaning of the verb “is”, everyone must admit that the church organization of Jorge Mario Bergoglio either is the true Church or it is not. After his supposed excommunication from the Church in 1983, Bishop Moisés Carmona (1912-1991), one of the Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Thuc, wrote to the Archbishop of Chihuahua Adalbert Almeida in reply:

From what Church, Msgr. Almeida – from that of always – or from the new one? You apostates, eminent representatives of the Vatican II Church, do you have power to excommunicate those who remain in the Church of always?... It is a glory for us to be excommunicated for our loyalty to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church; we desire that more excommunication come and to have the good fortune to die excommunicated by that Church, which is not the Church of Christ assisted by the Holy Ghost.*23

And truly, the position of Bishop Carmona, the Totalist and Sedevacantist position, is the only one which is completely in accord with Scripture and Tradition. St. Paul wrote to the Ephesians:

Let women be subject to their husbands, as to Our Lord: because the man is the head of the woman, as Christ is the Head of the Church, Himself, the Saviour of His Body. But as the Church is subject to Christ, so also the women to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself for it: that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word: that He might present to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it may be holy and unspotted.*24

Pope Boniface VIII opened his famous bull Unam Sanctam (1302) with these words:

With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: “One is my dove, my perfect one. One she is of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her” [Cant. 6:8].*25

We Totalists declare, with Bishop Carmona and Mr. Omlor, that this Vatican II “Church” has nothing whatsoever to do with the true Church of Christ. We cannot identify the church organization of Jorge Bergoglio as the Church without “spot or wrinkle” which is “holy and unspotted” and the “perfect one.”

But if anyone still has doubts about if the church organization of Bergoglio is the same thing as the Catholic Church, he doesn’t need to take the word of the Totalists for it. All he needs to do is to take his Baltimore Catechism, look the four marks of the Church and see if he finds them in Bergoglio’s church. Those four marks are:

Why is the Catholic Church one?

The Catholic Church is one because all its members, according to the will of Christ, profess the same faith, have the same sacrifice and sacraments, and are united under one and the same visible head, the Pope.

Why is the Catholic Church holy?

The Catholic Church is holy because it was founded by Jesus Christ, who is all-holy, and because it teaches, according to the will of Christ, holy doctrines, and provides the means of leading a holy life, thereby giving holy members to every age.

Why is the Catholic Church catholic or universal?

The Catholic Church is catholic or universal because, destined to last for all time, it never fails to fulfill the divine commandment to teach all nations all the truths revealed by God.

Why is the Catholic Church apostolic?

The Catholic Church is apostolic because it was founded by Christ on the apostles and, according to His divine will, has always been governed by their lawful successors.*26

Obviously the question, if the church organization of Bergoglio is the true Church of Christ or not, is something which no Catholic can remain in doubt. But the true Church always has the answers, and offers the means for her members to solve any doubts which pertain to faith or morals. And for many it might be, that the message of the Totalists, that the church of Bergoglio is a heretic sect, is “a hard saying.”*27 But, as Sherlock Holmes once said: “Any truth is better than indefinite doubt.”*28

IV. Is Bergoglio Eligible to be Elected Pope?

Another major difference between Thesis and Totalism is the question about if Bergoglio has been elected to receive the papacy. Or, as Fr. Dutertre puts it:

Where the Thesis disagrees with totalism is in the explanation of how these claimants to the papacy were not true popes.*29

Here is another major difficulty with the Thesis universe, because a normal human mind does not work this way. It would be like if I would ask one of my students to explain in what manner I am not the President of the United States. An average student would probably find this question very confusing, because a normal mind grasps that a person either is the President or he is not.

Nevertheless, in his interview with the Catholic Family Podcast, Bishop Sanborn said that yes, a Pope who falls into heresy would ipso facto [by the very fact] fall away also from the Church membership. But in order that this falling away from the Church membership have a legal effect, the culprit must be declared guilty by the Church. He gives a long list of theologians, e.g. Cajetan, Billuart, St. Robert Bellarmine, who all say the same as the Thesis, i.e. that in order that Bergoglio not being legally the Pope-elect, he must be declared so by the Church, otherwise he retains designation to the papacy, in a same way as the President-elect of the United States. Some legal body must take the election away, and if it’s not taken away, and Bergoglio would convert, he’d become Pope.*30

But this view is entirely false. As Fr. Cekada has pointed out, it is divine law that a person who does not hold the Catholic faith is incapable of being validly elected to receive the papacy.*31 Pope Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis (1943):

Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith, and have not, to their misfortune, separated themselves from the structure of the Body, or for very serious sins have not been excluded by lawful authority. - - Nor must one think that the Body of the Church - - is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. - - For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.*32

We see, therefore, that Pius XII, in no unclear words, teaches that separation from the Catholic Church can happen either by excommunication from the part of the Church or by one separating himself from her by committing a sin of schism, heresy, or apostasy.

Furthermore, just like the electoral college has the power to elect the President, nevertheless neither the papal or presidential electors possess the power to elect whoever they want to. The electoral college of the United States has strict restrictions, dictated in the Constitution, who is eligible to be elected President. And those constitutional qualifications are, that the President-elect must:

  1. Be a natural-born citizen,

  2. Be at least 35 years old; and

  3. Have resided in the United States for at least 14 years.*33

Ilhan Omar, Democratic congresswoman from Minnesota, was born is Somalia in 1982, and she is a naturalized citizen of the United States. She is therefore constitutionally ineligible to be elected as President. Even if she would run, would win all 50 states, and be unanimously elected by the Electoral College, no legal election can give her something which she is unable to receive, namely the presidency of the United States.

Similarly, it is false what Fr. Duterte claims, that “undeclared heretics can validly elect and be elected in the Church.”*34 As Father Filippo Maroto, a consultant of the Holy Office, who worked in the preparation of the 1917 Code points out, the validity of papal election depends only upon the divine law; and those impediments given by divine law render the election of a Roman Pontiff invalid. And the qualifications for the elect are that he be:

  1. with the use of his reason

  2. of the male sex

  3. a member of the Church, for which reason infidels, heretics and schismatics cannot be validly elected.*35

But regarding if Bergoglio is an actual Pope-elect or not, it is completely irrelevant what Bishop Sanborn says, what Fr. Dutertre says, or what Fr. Cekada says, or what I say. In the real world, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who was baptized on 25 December 1936, in the Basilica of Mary Help of Christians and St. Charles Borromeo in Buenos Aires, either

  1. is a member of the Catholic Church; or

  2. is not a member of the Catholic Church.

And that’s it. Those are the only two options there is. And if he is the member of the Church, he is capable, not only to be elected to receive the papacy, but actually to receive the papacy.*36

But if one still holds the Thesis as true, and that a public apostate can be validly elected to receive the papacy, one can just as well claim that Ilhan Omar can be elected to receive the papacy. If the pope-elect can be dispensed from having the Catholic faith and the Church membership, he can just as well be excused from being baptized, or of being the male sex, too. This is a logical conclusion, if one holds that a human law can trump the divine law.

V. Where we get the Pope, then?

In the question how might the Church get a true Pope again, three theories to solve the problem have been suggested:

  1. Direct divine intervention

  2. An imperfect General Council

  3. The Thesis, i.e. conversion of Bergoglio to the true Faith.*37

We Totalists are often criticized of not taking the problem of Apostolic succession seriously and just saying that “God will solve the crisis.” I never understood why is it such a terrible sin to put your hope and trust to God. Bishop Dolan always saw this crisis as a punishment from God for which Catholics need to do reparation, rather than some big problem which man needs to solve. The impatience of getting this “problem” solved reminds me of the Apostles’ question to Jesus: “Lord, whether at this time wilt Thou restore the kingdom of Israel?” And He responded: “It is not for you to know times or moments, which the Father hath put in His own power.”*38

The private revelation most quoted for the restoration of the papacy was received by Venerable Elisabetta Canori Mora (1774-1825), who was a professed member from the Third Order of Trinitarians. She once received a vision where St. Peter descended from heaven, dressed in pontifical vestments surrounded by angels, and protected the faithful from the acts of violence. To celebrate the victory over the persecutors and demons, the faithful were led to the feet of St. Peter to make homage to him. St. Peter himself chose new pope who would restore to reorganize the Church and re-establish the religious orders, and this new pope was recognized in every country of the world as the new Vicar of Christ.*39

So in the divine intervention, St. Peter simply chooses and points out who the new Pope is. And he can very well be someone who already is both validly and legally consecrated Bishop, and there is no need to establish any “new” hierarchy.

The idea of an Imperfect General Council was developed by Cardinal Thomas Cajetan (1469-1534), who says that should the College of Cardinals become extinct, the right to elect a Pope would devolve to the clergy of Rome, and then to the universal Church.*40 I personally do not sup-port this solution, because the whole concept of an “imperfect General Council is a contradiction of terms; “General Council” by its very definition is “perfect” and in any case, calling together a General Council demands that it is done by the Pope, which is bit of a problem in our days.

But even this idea is better than the Thesis solution, because at least that places the solution to the crisis in the Church in the hands of Catholics, while the Thesis places it in the hands of Bergoglio and his false Bishops, who are heretics and apostates. If we Totalists are blamed or criticized of putting our hope and trust in God, instead of men,*41 we gladly plead guilty as charged.


Bp. Guérard des Lauriers composed his Thesis in the 1970s, when Paul VI was still the papal pretender. Probably in his times, when the parishes and the Vatican itself were still free from idolatry and open acceptance of immorality, the Thesis was still an acceptable explanation to the crisis in the Church. And maybe in the conclaves of 1978, when there were still few valid Cardinals left, and Cardinal Giuseppe Siri was a strong candidate to be elected to receive the papacy, the Novus Ordo structure could have been saved. But in our days, the church organization of Jorge Mario Bergoglio doesn’t even vaguely resemble the Catholic Church anymore. And that’s why the Thesis is hopelessly outdated in our days. If Bergoglio’s church is the Catholic Church, then the true Church could designate a false pope. And if it is not the true Church, then a false Church could designate a true Pope.


Bainvel, Jean-Vincent

1909 Apostolicité – Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique. Tome I. Deuxième partie. Paris: Letouzey et Ané.


2018 The New Confraternity Edition Revised Baltimore Catechism No. 3. Elkhorn, WI: St. Jerome Library.

Benigni, Umberto

1913 Camerlengo. – The Catholic Encyclopedia. Volume III. New York, NY: The Encyclopedia Press.

Biskupek, Aloysius

1935 Ordinations. A Translation and Explanation of the Rite of Ordination. Techny, IL: Mission Press, S.V.D.

Cekada, Anthony

2021a Don’t Get Me Started! Vol. I. Road to Sedevacantism. West Chester, OH: St. Gertrude the Great Church.

2021b Don’t Get Me Started! Vol. II. The Controversialist. West Chester, OH: St. Gertrude the Great Church.

2021c Don’t Get Me Started! Vol. III. Whatever. West Chester, OH: St. Gertrude the Great Church.


2001 The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law. Edward N. Peters (ed.) San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press.

Despósito, Nicolás E.


1963 Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum. Ed. 32. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder.

Dutertre, Damien


2009 The Sources of Catholic Dogma. Boonville, NY: Preserving Christian Publications.

Herbert, Mary Elizabeth (ed.)

1878 Life Of The Venerable Elizabeth Canori Mora. London: R. Washbourne.

Iribarren, Isabel

2005 Durandus of Saint-Pourçain. A Dominican Theologian in the Shadow of Aquinas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Maroto, Philippo

1919 Institutiones Iuris Canonici ad Normam Novi Codicis. Tomus II. Madrid: Editorial del Corazon de Maria.

Omlor, Patrick Henry

1998 The Robber Church. Stouffville, Canada: Studio Graziano.

Parente, Pietro et al.

1952 Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology. Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company.

Ricossa, Francesco

Short Explanation of the Thesis


*1 DZ 1823.

*2 BC 144.

*3 Benigni 1913, 217

*4 Cfr. Declaration of Abp. Thuc et al. May 26, 1983.

*5 Dutertre 2022a, 2.

*6 Dutertre 2022a, 8.

*7 Ricossa 2016, 18.

*8 Bainvel 1909, 1625

*9 Omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est, schismaticum est, et extra unitatem Ecclesiæ est. Biskupek 1935, 50.

*10 “Absolutely Null and Utterly Void” (2006). Cekada 2021b, 278-325. “Still Null and Still Void” (2007) Cekada 2021b, 356-381.

*11 Despósito 2019, 8. Emphasis in the original

*12 John 10:1-2.

*13 CCL 197 §1.

*14 Cekada 2021b, 63-64.

*15 “Traditional Priests, Legitimate Sacraments” (2003). Cekada 2021b, 129-139.

*16 Despósito 2019, 6.

*17 L’Osservatore Romano, English Edition, 18 April 1983, p. 12.

*18 Dutertre 2022b, 38.

*19 Despósito 2019, 5.

*20 Parente 1952, 160, 200.

*21 The Dominicans, in the tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas, fiercely attacked against nominalism, whose one main proponent was Durandus of Saint-Pourçain. Durandus (d. 1334), whose name means “hardened” or “enduring”, was the theological advisor of Pope John XXII at Avignon, and later Bishop of the diocese of Meaux in 1326-1334. He was constantly in trouble with his order because of his opposition to the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas on several theological and philosophical questions. There is a persistent rumor that the Dominicans wrote as an epitaph on Durandus’ grave at Meaux these verses:

Durus Durandus jacet hic sub marmore duro.

An sit salvandus, ego nescio nec quoque curo.

Which can be translated:

“Stubborn Durandus here lies under the hard marble.

Whether he is saved, I do not know, neither do I care.”

Since the burial place of Durandus has not been preserved, we can neither confirm or deny this rumor. Iribarren 2005, 9.

*22 Omlor 1998, 164.

*23 Letter to the Abp. of Chihuahua, Adalbert Almeida, May, 1985.

*24 Eph. 5:22-27

*25 DZ 468.

*26 BC, qq. 156-159.

*27 Cfr. John 6:60.

*28 Arthur Conan Doyle: The Adventure of the Yellow Face (1893).

*29 Dutertre 2022a, 1. Emphasis in the original.

*31 “Bergoglio’s Got Nothing to Lose” (2014) Cekada 2021c, 244-255

*32 DS 3802-3803.

*33 Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

*34 Dutertre 2022a, 2.

*35 Maroto 1919, 171-172, #784; Cekada 2021c, 248

*36 Short Explanation of the Thesis.

*37 Cekada 2021a, 383.

*38 Acts 1:6-7.

*39 Herbert 1878, 137-139.

*40 Cekada 2021a, 383.

*41 Cfr. Ps. 145:2-3.

3,134 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


I commenti sono stati disattivati.
bottom of page