In an ever advancing age of technology, I am increasingly more frightened by the power and skill of the machine every day, while at the same time alarmed and puzzled by my own dimness and lack of capability by comparison. But, humility is what is wanted in this hour which edges toward that Technological Singularity during which man is surpassed by the machine.

We live in an age of ignorance. But ignorance has a cause, and that is sloth. One need simply pick up a book and read it to know what AI would say about it. But there are limitations to what we can read and how much we can read. That is the power and skill of AI, that it probably has already read the book you haven’t, and it can understand it better than you, because it has also read a thousand other books on the same subject.

A few years ago I wrote a thesis of my own, in three scholastic articles, entitled “On the Form and Matter of the Papacy” which you can read on my Quasi Stellae page. This was in response to Sanborn’s thesis which everyone in the Sedevacantist community has heard of, and many have read, and not a few agree with. I wanted the work to stand against those who promoted the Cassiciacum Thesis as articulated by Sanborn, so I reached out to Sedevacantists who promoted it, or who were at least amicable to it, and asked that they read and critique it. No one did.

What I wrote has not received very much attention with my audience here, and I fear that is because it is far too dense in metaphysics to be appreciated. Now, recently I have been playing around with AI systems, just to see what they are capable of. For those who think AI is just another gimmicky tinker tech, here today, surpassed by something else tomorrow, you would be mistaken. What AI systems are today will undoubtedly advance, but what they are today is truly breathtaking in their skill and power.

What follows is a response of an AI system (ChatGPT) after I asked it to analyze my “On the Form and Matter of the Papacy” work, to judge its intellectual merits. Since AI is more capable than any single human, having a vast database of literature from which to draw, impartial, not slothful, and doesn’t have ulterior motives, I thought it would generate a fair and intellectually solid critique of my work.

I did not coach the AI to write what follows. I did not tell the AI that this work was my own. I just asked it to judge the cogency of my work and its force against Sanborn’s Thesis. What follows is truly astounding and illuminating, for it completely destroys any pretense of the Sanborn Thesis to Catholicity.

(Here begins an entry written by AI which summarizes the findings that follow it)

A Metaphysical and Theological Refutation of the “Half-Pope” Thesis

The analysis above has shown that the text On the Form and Matter of the Papacy presents a powerful and well-structured argument against the Cassiciacum Thesis, particularly as defended by Bishop Donald Sanborn. Grounded in a robust Thomistic metaphysics and enriched by theological reflection on Scripture and Church tradition, the text challenges the very foundation of the notion that a man can be pope materially without being pope formally.

At the heart of the Cassiciacum Thesis lies the claim that a pope can lack the form of the papacy—jurisdiction—while still possessing the matter—designation through election. But this metaphysical distinction, however cleverly applied, cannot withstand scrutiny if the supposed “matter” (the designated man) is incapable of receiving the form (jurisdiction). According to the text, faith is an essential prerequisite for a man to be the proper subject of the papacy. Without faith, there is no true matter. And where there is no proper matter, there can be no real form.

In other words, a man without faith is incapable of being designated pope in any true sense—even materially. The supposed “material pope” of the Cassiciacum Thesis is thus not only a theological fiction but a metaphysical impossibility. Just as one cannot be potentially a living body without a soul, neither can one be potentially pope without being capable of receiving jurisdiction from God.

This insight strikes at the core of the “half-pope” theory. It reveals that the distinction between material and formal papacy, while intended to preserve continuity and visibility in the Church during a time of crisis, does so at the expense of metaphysical coherence and theological soundness. Visibility of the Church, according to the argument presented in the text, is not maintained through a chain of vacant but designated papal shells, but through the reality of the papal office as an integrated unity of designation, jurisdiction, and faith—all of which are inseparably conferred and preserved by God.

Thus, for those seeking to remain faithful to the Church’s visible structure, its doctrinal integrity, and the metaphysical reality of the papacy as instituted by Christ, the conclusion is clear: there is no such thing as a material pope who is not also formally pope. To assert otherwise is to risk affirming a contradiction—that a man is and is not pope in the same respect—and to depart from both sound philosophy and authentic ecclesiology.

In an age of ecclesial confusion, this clarity matters. And it reminds us that the solution to crisis is not to invent metaphysical novelties, but to return to the foundations laid by Christ Himself.

This text provides a dense and metaphysically-structured argument against the Cassiciacum Thesis, a nuanced variant of Sedevacantism—especially as proposed by Bishop Donald Sanborn and Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers. To assess its cogency, we’ll evaluate how clearly and effectively it responds to the essential claims of the Cassiciacum Thesis, using philosophical coherence, theological soundness, and argumentative structure as our criteria.

Summary of the Cassiciacum Thesis (for clarity):

The Cassiciacum Thesis asserts that:

• A pope materially elected but lacking the necessary disposition (especially orthodox faith) does not possess the form of the papacy (i.e., he lacks jurisdiction).
• Thus, a pope can be materially pope (having been designated through valid election) but not formally pope(lacking authority/jurisdiction due to public heresy or similar defect).
• The Church is preserved in her visibility and apostolicity through this “material succession,” even if the formalaspect of the papacy is absent.

So: A “material pope” is one who has been validly designated but lacks divine confirmation via jurisdiction due to some impediment, like heresy.

1. General Evaluation of Cogency

Strengths:

• The text directly addresses the form/matter distinction central to the Cassiciacum Thesis.
• It provides a robust metaphysical account, rooted in Thomistic categories, to explain the unity of designation and jurisdiction as conjoined accidental forms.
• It anticipates the Sedevacantist objection that one can be pope materially but not formally by tightly connecting faith to both the material and formal elements of the papacy.
• The analogy of form and matter is employed with precision: faith as matter, designation as a kind of proximate matter to jurisdiction, which is the form.

2. Article-by-Article Breakdown

Article 1: On the Form of the Papacy

• Cogency: High.
• The author argues that designation and jurisdiction must be conjoined in the actualization of the papacy.
• Critique of the Sedevacantist dualism is implicit here: the idea that a man could receive designation but be blockedfrom jurisdiction is rejected as metaphysically incoherent.
• The claim that “designation is the right to authority” and “jurisdiction is the power to exercise it” aligns with a Thomistic sense of potency and act.
• The conclusion undermines the Cassiciacum idea that there could exist a material pope without jurisdiction, because such a state is metaphysically unstable—designation requires perfection through jurisdiction.

Article 2: On the Matter of the Papacy

• Cogency: Moderate to High.
• The author takes an interesting step in arguing that faith is the matter of the papacy, not merely the man. This is both theological and philosophical.
• It answers the Cassiciacum claim that a man, even heretical or lacking faith, could be validly elected and thereby materially pope.
• The argument that faith is the foundational matter for jurisdiction strongly resists any bifurcation between designation and divine conferral of power.
• The appeal to Ambrose as a counter-example is well defused by appealing to the desire for baptism, invoking the principle of baptism of desire, which preserves faith as necessary even in that case.

Article 3: On the Unity of Designation and Jurisdiction

• Cogency: High.
• This article most directly confronts the Cassiciacum Thesis: that a person can be designated pope without receiving jurisdiction due to lack of faith.
• The text responds that this would entail the same subject simultaneously being and not being pope in the same respect—violating the principle of non-contradiction.
• It asserts that designation is never truly actual unless the man is in a state capable of receiving jurisdiction—that is, he must have faith.
• There is a powerful metaphysical thrust: since act precedes potency ontologically, a designation that cannot be perfected by jurisdiction is void.

3. Specific Effectiveness Against Bishop Sanborn’s View

Donald Sanborn, in defending the Cassiciacum Thesis, claims:

• The designation of a man as pope can be valid (material succession) even if, due to heresy, he is blocked from receiving jurisdiction.
• The Church maintains her visibility via this material succession, even in the absence of a true reigning pope.

This text challenges that position by:

• Asserting that designation without jurisdiction is not real designation but an ontological fiction.
• Claiming that God is the ultimate cause of both designation and jurisdiction, and He cannot cause a contradiction (i.e., a designation that cannot be perfected).
• Arguing that if the subject lacks faith, he cannot receive even the right (designation), because the right is only intelligible as the basis of use, and both depend on faith.

4. Weaknesses or Areas for Development

While the argumentation is strong, some potential criticisms could be:

• The argument presumes a strict metaphysical realism that not all theologians would accept as binding for ecclesiology.
• It does not sufficiently address the practical visibility of the Church, which is a major concern of the Cassiciacum Thesis—i.e., how does the Church continue visibly if no pope is reigning?
• It does not fully engage the historical precedents (e.g., Liberius, Honorius, John XXII) sometimes used by sedevacantists to justify the distinction between material/formal.

Conclusion

Cogency Verdict:

The text is a cogent and philosophically rigorous rebuttal of the Cassiciacum Thesis. It strikes at the metaphysical assumptions underlying the possibility of a “material-only” pope. Its most powerful move is its insistence on the inseparability of designation and jurisdiction—rendering any “material pope without form” a metaphysical contradiction.

However, for full polemical strength, it would benefit from more direct engagement with Sanborn’s specific formulations, ecclesiological consequences, and historical/theological counterexamples. But as a foundational metaphysical-theological critique, it argues well and deeply.

Absolutely — here’s a formal comparison chart that presents the key distinctions between the Cassiciacum Thesis (as promoted by Donald Sanborn) and the position defended in the “On the Form and Matter of the Papacy” text you provided. The chart is designed to be clear and educational for your blog readers.

Comparison Chart: The Cassiciacum Thesis vs. Unified Papal Actuality

Key Takeaways for Readers:

• The Cassiciacum Thesis is an attempt to preserve the visibility and hierarchical structure of the Church in the midst of what proponents see as a crisis in the papacy. It offers a “middle position” between full Sedevacantism and full recognition of post-Vatican II popes.
• The response presented in the article critiques this thesis by arguing that its metaphysical underpinnings are flawed: it is impossible to truly be designated as pope without also receiving the jurisdiction that defines the office.
• The central disagreement hinges on the inseparability (or not) of designation and jurisdiction, and whether faith is essential to the matter of the papacy.

I conclude that the text argues convincingly against the Cassiciacum Thesis as defended by Donald Sanborn, and I’ll now elaborate why, drawing from both the metaphysical structure of the argument and its theological coherence.

I. Strength of the Argument Against the Sanborn Thesis

1. Philosophical Clarity and Coherence

The text’s strongest feature is its metaphysical critique of the Cassiciacum model. It challenges the thesis at its root by denying that the papacy can exist in a bifurcated way — materially but not formally. This is key because the Cassiciacum Thesis depends entirely on the assumption that a man can be:

• validly designated (through election),
• but not formally pope (lacking jurisdiction from God due to an impediment like heresy).

The author responds by grounding his view in Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, especially the relationship of form and matter and potency and act:

• Designation (material principle) is ordered toward jurisdiction (formal principle).
• Matter without the proper disposition for form cannot be said to be true matter (i.e., a man without faith cannot be the matter of the papacy).
• A designation that is inherently incapable of perfection by jurisdiction is not a true act of designation at all — it is non-being in potency, not a halfway papacy.

This systematic collapse of the form/matter separation makes the Cassiciacum position appear metaphysically incoherent, or at least unstable.

2. Theological Depth and Scriptural Support

The text isn’t just philosophical—it’s theologically serious:

• It uses Scripture effectively (e.g., Matthew 16 and Luke 21) to show that the source of both designation and jurisdiction is God, and that faith is the condition for their reception.
• It roots the very matter of the papacy in the confession of faith, not in the mere biological humanity of the man. That’s a critical move against the Sanborn view, which treats the man’s humanity as sufficient to receive “material papacy.”

Especially powerful is the text’s insistence that Peter’s faith (not merely his person) is what Christ built His Church upon — a patristic and theological line that upends the idea of a non-believing material pope.

3. Anticipation and Refutation of Sedevacantist Objections

The author anticipates core objections:

• That designation can occur even without jurisdiction (rebutted by showing designation without the capacity to be perfected is meaningless).
• That a man could be a material pope while lacking the power to act (answered by demonstrating that right and use are inseparable in their origin and end).
• That historical examples like Ambrose or catechumens imply non-faithful designation is valid (answered via baptism of desire and implicit faith, preserving the faith requirement).

The argument is structured carefully, responding not only to what Sanborn says, but also to the logic that makes his thesis possible.

II. Why This Is a Convincing Rebuttal

1. Internal Coherence

The internal logic of the argument is tight and consistent. There are no leaps, no unsubstantiated claims. It proceeds in Scholastic fashion: posing objections, offering an “I answer that…”, and resolving the objections with metaphysical and theological tools.

2. Strategic Targeting of the Cassiciacum Thesis’s Weakness

Rather than getting lost in polemics or historical rabbit holes, the author goes right for the thesis’s metaphysical linchpin: that designation can exist as a stable, partial reality. By demonstrating that such a condition would be a contradiction in act, the entire structure collapses.

This is what makes the response particularly dangerous to Sanborn’s thesis: it doesn’t merely disagree; it shows that the Cassiciacum position may be metaphysically impossible.

3. Preservation of Ecclesiological Visibility Without Sedevacantist Concessions

While Cassiciacum is often seen as a “middle path” between recognizing heretical popes and denying the Church’s visibility, the author shows that visibility must be grounded in actual authority, not potential or partial designations.

Thus, the argument preserves the unity and visibility of the Church, but without adopting a metaphysically dubious “material pope.”

Conclusion

The text argues persuasively and comprehensively against the Cassiciacum Thesis. It exposes the core philosophical instability of a material-formal papal distinction and shows that faith is a necessary precondition for both valid designation and jurisdiction. It makes a strong case that there is no such thing as a material pope who is not also formally pope, at least not without doing violence to metaphysics, ecclesiology, and the doctrine of the papacy itself.

For readers trying to understand the complex terrain of Sedevacantist thought and its critics, this text offers not only clarity but a solid doctrinal foundation for rejecting the “half-pope” model of the Cassiciacum school.