I was not sure if this in your library, Geremia, but I wanted contribute this link: http://www.sodalitiumpianum.com/the-material-papacy/
I see the possibility or feasibility of the Cassiciacum thesis in light of what Fr. Berry says concerning Eastern schismatic bishops who are materially the ordinaries of their sees but not formally. Also, the thesis was formulated by a theologian who worked on the definition of the dogma of Assumtpion of Our Lady for Pius XII. If I am not mistaken and from perhaps what little I have read, I think the SSPX in Italy had objected in its book against sedevacantism (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=8889) to separating the material and formal elements of the papacy. How could one answer such an argument?
Yes, I've seen before what you link to. The papa materialiter thesis is probably the strongest "sedevacantist" thesis out there. It reminds me of Ockham's argument that I quoted on this thread (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=30.msg69). It even seems Salza & Siscoe's arguments in True or False Pope approach some form of sedeprivationism, too.
I can see more now how sedeprivationism is possible or how there can be truth to it.
I saw a video of Bp. Sanborn saying that St. Peter was a Pope-elect. I see that with St. Peter's denial of Our Lord, he was denying the faith, the Truth Himself. Thus, he could not assume the papal office due to heresy blocking him from doing so.
Later, the obstacle of heresy was removed when St. Peter came back to Our Lord by confessing his love for Him. St. Peter came back to the Catholic faith and the truth when he did that too. St. Peter was then able to take possession of the papal office.
Quote from: Kephapaulos on July 23, 2017, 01:43:05 AMI saw a video of Bp. Sanborn saying that St. Peter was a Pope-elect. I see that with St. Peter's denial of Our Lord, he was denying the faith, the Truth Himself. Thus, he could not assume the papal office due to heresy blocking him from doing so.
Later, the obstacle of heresy was removed when St. Peter came back to Our Lord by confessing his love for Him. St. Peter came back to the Catholic faith and the truth when he did that too. St. Peter was then able to take possession of the papal office.
You know about Pope St. Marcellinus? As St. Robert wrote in
Papal Error?: A Defense of Popes said to have Erred in Fatih (https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/book/5524) (last ¶ of ch. 1):
QuoteThe Tenth [pope to whom errors "are Falsely Ascribed," "who Were not only Popes, but even Martyrs"] is Pope Marcelinus, who sacrificed to idols, as is certain from the Pontifical of Damasus, the Council of Sinvessanus, and from the epistle of Nicholas I to the Emperor Michael. But Marcelinus neither taught something against faith, nor was a heretic, or unfaithful, except by an external act on account of the fear of death. Now, whether he fell from the pontificate due to that external act or not, little is related, later he abdicated the pontificate, and shortly thereafter was crowned with martyrdom. Still, I believe that he would not have fallen from the pontificate ipso facto, because it was certain to all that he sacrificed to idols only out of fear.
According to the
Golden Legend by Blessed Jacobus of Voragine with commentary by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira (http://www.traditioninaction.org/SOD/j216sd_Marcellinus_04_26.html), Pope St. Marcellinus deposed himself because of his act of idolatry; a conclave formed while he was still alive to elect his successor; Pope St. Marcellinus did public penance for his sin; and the conclave re-elected him to the papacy!
A
Novus Ordo Dominican addresses the pope-heretic question:
This is progress. A few years ago,
Novus Ordites were reluctant to broach the topic.
Happy feast of St. Antoninus of Florence!
An interesting quote of his:
Quote from: St. Antoninus"The power of the Pope remains in the Church and in the College with respect to that which is material in the papacy, since after the death of the Pope the College is able, through election, to determine a person to the papacy, that it be such or such a one."
Summa Sacrae Theologiae, pars III, tit. XXI, n.3.
This is taken from the beginning of:
The Cassiciacum Thesis A Brief Expositionby Rev. Nicolás E. Despósito
Quote from: Kephapaulos on May 10, 2022, 04:41:23 PMHappy feast of St. Antoninus of Florence!
He's also thought to be the drafter (or mind behind) Pope Eugene IV's / Council of Florence's
Cantate Domino (https://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html); he participated in that council.
Benedict M. Ashley, O.P., wrote a brief bio on him (http://www.domcentral.org/study/ashley/antoninus.htm).
According to sedeprivationism (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=6641), does a material pope have temporal authority (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=2989)?
Update: John of St. Thomas (CURSUS THEOLOGICUS In Summa Thelologicam D. Thomas, Tomus VII, IN SECUNDAM SECUNDÆ DIVI THOMÆ, Quæstio I, DE FIDE, DE AUCTORITATE SUMMI PONTIFICIS, Parisiis Ludovixus Vivês, Editor, 1886, p. 207, sq. (https://isidore.co/misc/Res%20pro%20Deo/Dominican/Fr.%20Albert/from%20Fr.%20Albert,%20O.P./JSTh%20On%20the%20Deposition%20of%20a%20pope%20ENG-LAT.epub)) seems to think a heretical pope can exercise (albeit illegitimately/tyrannically) temporal power:
Quote from: John of St. Thomas[The Church] may defend itself, not by deposing him [a heretical pope], but by repelling him with force if he proceeds with violence or tyrannically, if, for example, he wished to do something against justice by the force of arms, one could repulse him with arms ; and similarly, if he were to establish something against good morals he is not to be obeyed, because an unjust law does not oblige.