Montini, Galileo, & mathematics

[Geremia]

PDF pp. 108-10 of Thèse de Cassiciacum is a conference by Cardinal Montini in which he mentions mathematics, Plato, Galileo, and the Italian panpsychist Varisco:

Ce n'est pas sans raison que Galilée affirme [óu?] qu'en mathématiques (et comment se fait-il qu'aujourd'hui les mathématiques n'y arrivent pas) notre connaissance « égale la connaissance divine dans la certitude objective, car elle parvient à saisir la nécessité», et ainsi « participe à la divinité», du seul fait que l'intelligence humaine comprend la nature des nombres, « je le sais très bien, et je ne serais pas éloigné de porter le même jugement» que Platon à cet égard (cf. Varisco).

[It is not without reason that Galileo affirms [where?] that in mathematics (and how is it that today mathematics cannot do it) our knowledge "equals divine knowledge in objective certainty, because it comes to know necessity", and thus "participates in the divinity", from the sole fact that human intelligence understands the nature of numbers, "I know it very well, and I would not be far from making the same judgment" as Plato in this respect (see Varisco).]

Bp. Des Lauriers's brief refutation says Montini was "radicalement viciée par le rationalisme athée" ("radically vitiated by atheistic rationalism") who confused

deux « nécessités », à savoir: celle des enchaînements formels qui sont l'objet de la mathématique; celle des principes métaphysiques qui fondent la connaissance de la réalité.

[two "necessities", namely: that of formal links which are the object of mathematics; that of the metaphysical principles which underlie the knowledge of reality.]

cf.:

• Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., "Du nécessaire en mathématiques," Revue Néo-Scolastique de Philosophie 39, no. 50 (1936): 184–207.

[Kephapaulos]

Interesting that you mention this citation from Bp. Guerard des Lauriers' Cassiciacum Thesis because this recent video came out on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfHGGmLYg-A .

[Geremia]

Interesting that you mention this citation from Bp. Guerard des Lauriers' Cassiciacum Thesis because this recent video came out on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfHGGmLYg-A .

@23:18 he says: "In order to have perpetual successors of Peter, it is necessary to have perpetual electors of Peter." So he'd seem to rule out a miraculous divine election of a pope, but right after that he says it could be possible in the case of extreme necessity.
I like that he refutes conclavism by saying sedevacantist bishops have no title (presumed or otherwise) to jurisdiction in any territory and thus cannot represent the whole Church in a valid conclave.

[Kephapaulos]

1) Sedeprivationism proposes a solution to electing another pope, but do you still hold to that position, Geremia?



2) I know that Fr. Cekada mentions other ways that were proposed for electing another pope in the case of absolute sedevacantism, but if, as some perhaps hold, Christ were to later miraculously infused the Church with ordinary jurisdiction through Sts. Peter and Paul, how would that be compatible with the indefectibility and visibility of the Church?



3) Would then not mean that Christ did not properly endow his Church in the beginning?



4) Does that mean the stability of the Church rests on the faith of one man, i.e. the pope?



5) Because such faith is to reflect the faith of St. Peter, the rock on whom and on whose faith the Church was built by Christ?

[Geremia]

1) Sedeprivationism proposes a solution to electing another pope, but do you still hold to that position, Geremia?

Yes, it's a good solution because it shows that the Church is still able to elect successors to St. Peter. Sedevacantism says the Church became defective in 1958, losing the ability to elect successors to St. Peter.  

if, as some perhaps hold, Christ were to later miraculously infused the Church with ordinary jurisdiction through Sts. Peter and Paul, how would that be compatible with the indefectibility and visibility of the Church?

It isn't.

3) Would then not mean that Christ did not properly endow his Church in the beginning?

Yes

Does [...] the stability of the Church rests on the faith of one man, i.e. the pope?

Yes.

such faith is to reflect the faith of St. Peter, the rock on whom and on whose faith the Church was built by Christ?

The rock is the person of St. Peter himself, not solely his faith; the latter is a Protestant interpretation of Mt. 16:18.

St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., De Romano Pontifice ch. 10:

The fourth opinion remains, which is common among nearly all Lutherans, and at first glance appears to be confirmed by the testimony of the Fathers. Accordingly Hillary teaches: "The building of the Church is the rock of confession . . . This faith of the Church is the foundation: through this faith the gates of hell are weak against it: this faith of the kingdom of heaven holds the keys." 222 St. Ambrose says: "The foundation of the Church is faith." 223 St. John Chrysostom: "Upon this rock I will build my Church, that is faith and confession." 224 Likewise Cyril, explaining this citation: "I reckon he called the rock is nothing other than unshaken and firm faith of the disciple." 225
     Illyricus adds: "If it is founded upon Peter, and rather not upon the confession of Faith of the Church, then immediately it would have fallen. For Peter soon ran at the point of the Lord's passion, and he fell. Moreover in the same Chapter of St. Matthew, it is said to him: 'Get behind me Satan, you are a scandal to me, because you do not have a sense of what is of God.' Thereupon he denied Christ a third time, and not without a great curse."
     I respond: Faith, or confession, is considered in two ways. In one way it absolutely followed itself, and without any relation to the person of Peter: in the second way with relation to Peter. In the first way it appears our adversaries would have it that faith is the foundation of the Church, but certainly they are deceived. If it were so, why didn't the Lord say, instead of: "I will build upon this rock," "I am building," or "I have built my Church"? Many had already believed that he was the son of the living God, as early as the prophets, the Blessed Virgin, Simeon, Zachariah, John the Baptist, the apostles and remaining disciples.
     Next, faith taken up absolutely, is rightly called the foundation of justification and of all strength, as Augustine says: "The house of God is founded by belief, erected by hope, perfected by love." 226 But the foundation of the Church is not properly faith. There ought to be a foundation of the same kind, as well as the rest of the building. The Church is a congregation of men, just as of living stones, 227 therefore the stone, which is the foundation, ought to be also some man, not some virtue.
     Last, that pronoun this most clearly showed that through the rock faith cannot be understood absolutely: for it is referred more closely to the one named rock: next, it had been said to Simon: "You are rock," not to faith; therefore it behooves us to accept faith in the second way is the foundation, and to say not any faith you please, but the faith of Peter, and not of Peter as a private man, but as the shepherd of the Church. It coincides with that, which we said in this regard, that Peter is the foundation.
     Therefore the faith of Peter is the foundation of the Church for a two-fold reasoning. First, that on account of the merit of his faith Peter attained that he should be the foundation of the Church, as Jerome, Hilary, Chrysostom and others show on this place. Secondly, because Peter is chiefly in the very matter the foundation of the Church, that since his faith cannot fail, he ought to confirm and hold up all the others in faith. Thus, the Lord said to him: "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith should not fail, and when thou hast converted strengthen thy brethren." 228
     Therefore, by reasoning of his indefectible faith, Peter should be the firmest rock, sustaining the whole Church; it is the same thing to say "upon Peter" and "upon his faith" the Church was founded, and the Fathers cited speak in this manner. For St. Hilary, after he had said the faith of Peter is the foundation of the Church, and receives the keys of the kingdom, he adds on Peter himself: "He merited a preeminent place by the confession of his blessed Faith," and a little after: "Hence, he holds the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence, his earthly judgments are heavenly, etc." 229
     Therefore, as he had said, "faith is the foundation and holds the keys," so now he says Peter by reason of his faith merited a preeminent place, that is, that he should be the head, or foundation, and should hold the keys. And he says the same thing most beautifully about Peter: "O happy foundation of the Church by the solemn decree of a new name." 230
     For equal reasoning St. Ambrose, where he says the faith of Peter is the foundation of the Church, he notes the same thing: "He did not refuse to his disciple the favor of this word, that he should also be Peter, who as the rock should have solidity of steadfastness and firmness of faith." 231
     Chrysostom explaining in both citations, why it is that the Church is built upon the confession of Peter, introduces the Lord speaking thus: I will build my Church upon you."
     Next, Cyril also says the foundation is not any faith, but that unconquerable and most firm faith of St. Peter; and he writes that Peter himself is the rock, upon which the Church is founded. 232
     Now I respond to the objection of Illyricus, firstly with the commentary of Jerome for this chapter: when Peter was told: "Get behind me Satan" and when he denied Christ, he was not yet the foundation. Therefore the place Christ promised him, he had intended to give to him after the resurrection. Add, that Peter did not err on the faith, but was merely ignorant of something, when he was told, "Get behind me Satan," and he was lacking in charity, not in faith, when he denied Christ. That we will teach in its proper place in the treatise on the Church
222 De Trinitate, bk 6.
223 In Lucam, bk. 6, ch. 9.
224 In Matth. Hom. 55; cf. In Matth., hom. 83.
225 De Trinit., bk 4.
226 Augustine, De verb. Apost., Serm. 22.
227 1 Peter II.
228 Luke XXII: 32.
229 Hilary, loc. cit.
230 In Matth., ch. 16.
231 In Lucam, bk 6, ch. 9.
232 In Joannem, bk 2, ch. 12.