A ‘Catholic Hierarchy Secundum Quid “? A Misleading Illusion

 

A thing is named from its form, not from what remains when the form is absent.

 ...what is proposed under the name of a “Catholic hierarchy secundum quid” is not a hierarchy in any true sense, whether complete or partial. It is a misapplication of metaphysical language to a moral reality, resulting in a verbal construct without corresponding ecclesial substance. 

Prologue: A Return to First Principles

In times of doctrinal confusion, it is not uncommon to see philosophical terms recalled without due regard for their proper meaning. Words drawn from the scholastic tradition are employed, yet detached from the principles that once gave them precision and force.

Among such expressions there has emerged the notion of a “Catholic hierarchy secundum quid.”

At first hearing, the phrase carries an air of learning and seems to offer a way of preserving order amid disorder. Yet upon closer examination, it introduces not clarity but confusion: for it suggests that the formal reality of the Church’s hierarchy may subsist where its essential principle is lacking. This illusion is seriously misleading. 

Thus the question must be posed with precision:

Can a hierarchy be called Catholic in some respect while lacking that which constitutes it as such? Or does such a mode of predication dissolve upon analysis, leaving only a verbal construct without corresponding reality?

This we know, the Church of Christ is not a mere abstraction, nor a name imposed upon incomplete elements. She is a visible and juridical society, constituted by definite principles and founded upon reality, not appearance.

It is therefore necessary to return to sound philosophy and Catholic doctrine, that this question may be examined according to first principles, and the truth clearly established. 

The Argument 

Let the reader note that in the following argument “CT” stands for “Cassiciacum Thesis”.

...Proposition:  Conciliar Hierarchy is the Catholic hierarchy.

CT adherents:  "Distinguo".

• That the Conciliar Hierarchy is the Catholic Hierarchy "simpliciter", "nego".  
• That the Conciliar Hierarchy is the Catholic Hierarchy "secundum quid", "concedo" / "affirmo".

"Secundum Quid":  

• That the Conciliar hiearchy is the Catholic hierarchy "materialiter", "concedo".  
• That the Conciliar hierarchy is the Catohlic hierarchy "formaliter", "nego".  

See, it's not that hard.  

Just because they are the Catholic hierarchy IN ONE RESPECT ("secundum quid"), that does not make them the Catholic hierarchy in all respects ("simpliciter").  CT holds that these "hierarchs" have a legal right or appointment or designation to the office, but they do not and cannot formally exercise this office, this POTENCY to exercise authority due to the impediment of heresy.

TRAD CLERGY:  THIS IS NOT THAT HARD!  DUST OFF THE FIRST YEAR SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHY BOOKS, EH? 

What is the core claim? 

• That proponents of the Cassiciacum Thesis affirm and concede that the “Conciliar hierarchy is the Catholic hierarchy in one respect (secundum quid). 
• But that it is not the Catholic hierarchy in reality (i.e. simpliciter). 

Note too the further clarification: 

• That being something “in one respect” does not mean being it “in all respects”

What is the conclusion Implied:

Precisely this: that according to the Cassiciacum Thesis proponents, the conciliar hierarchy:

• is materially Catholic
• but not formally Catholic

The argument is presented as:

• simple
• basic scholastic reasoning

And, take notice of the mocking order that those who argue against the Cassiciacum Thesis “dust off first-year scholastic philosophy books”

The Meaning of Secundum Quid

Let us quickly underline that in authentic Scholastic Philosophy, as taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, a thing is said secundum quid when it is predicated:

• under a restricted aspect
• according to something accidental
• not according to its full nature

So? Something is secundum quid when it possesses a reality under limitation. 

The Nature of the Catholic Hierarchy

The hierarchy of the Church is not a vague or accidental reality. It is:

• Moral
• visible
• juridical
• formal by its very essence.

What constitutes a member of the hierarchy as such is not mere designation, but:

• authority, jurisdiction; formally possessed and exercised within the Church.

When the formal principle is lacking, the thing is not present even imperfectly; it is absent in the order defined by that form.

Yes. Remove the formal element, and the hierarchy itself disappears. The hierarchy is not a body of men merely named, but a body of men invested with authority.

The Illicit Distinction

The proponents of the theory say:

That the conciliar hierarchy is Catholic simpliciter is denied.

But affirms that it is Catholic secundum quid. 

And they explain:

They concede that: 

• Materialiter they are designated. 
• But  that formaliter they lack authority. 

You see? This distinction appears scholastic. In reality, it is a misuse.

For it attempts to divide what cannot be divided.

Form, Jurisdiction, and the Exclusion Caused by Heresy

In juridical and ecclesiastical realities, what constitutes an office is not designation, but authority; namely, jurisdiction, which stands as the formal principle of the hierarchy.

What is sometimes called “matter” (designation, election, nomination) is not a true subject awaiting completion, but only a disposition toward office. The office itself comes into being only when the form, authority; is conferred.

Now this form is not absolute or self-subsisting. Jurisdiction is a juridical participation in the unity of the Church, and therefore presupposes communion in the faith as its necessary foundation.

Here the question of heresy becomes decisive. The defenders of the “Catholic hierarchy secundum quid” admits “the impediment of heresy”. 

But if heresy severs a man from the unity of the Church, it does not merely hinder the use of authority while leaving its possession intact. Rather, it removes the subject’s proportion to the form itself.

And where there is no proportion to the form, the form cannot be received.

Thus:

• designation without jurisdiction already fails to constitute hierarchy,
• and heresy removes even the capacity to receive that jurisdiction.

The conclusion follows with precision:

• There is neither a formal hierarchy (since jurisdiction is absent),
• nor even a material disposition properly ordered to it (since the subject is rendered incapable).

Therefore, what is proposed under the name of a “Catholic hierarchy secundum quid” is not a hierarchy in any true sense, whether complete or partial. It is a misapplication of metaphysical language to a moral reality, resulting in a verbal construct without corresponding ecclesial substance.

For in the Church, a thing is named from what formally constitutes it.

And where both the form is lacking and the subject is rendered incapable of receiving it, the reality itself is not verified; either simply or in a qualified sense. 

The Decisive Principle

• A thing is denominated from its form; and where the form is absent, the thing itself is not verified, either simply or secundum quid, unless there remains a true proportion to that form.
• But in the Church, jurisdiction is the form of hierarchical office, and this form presupposes unity of faith as its necessary foundation.
• Therefore, where heresy destroys that unity, it removes not only the form (authority), but also the subject’s proportion to receive it.

Hence, no designation without jurisdiction constitutes a hierarchy; and no subject severed from ecclesial unity can be said to possess or even secundum quid to verify hierarchical authority.

What remains is not a partial hierarchy, but the absence of it under the guise of a name. 

The Abuse of Potency and Act

The theory further claims:

“these men possess authority in potency, though impeded from exercising it.”

This gravely  confuses the principles of act and potency.

Potency, properly speaking, is an intrinsic capacity ordered to act within the same subject.

But jurisdiction is not such a potency. It is a moral and juridical act, conferred from without by legitimate authority.

Authority is not a dormant quality waiting to be activated; it must be actually given.

At most, one may speak of a remote capacity to receive office. But there is no state in which jurisdiction exists as a latent or impeded form.

Therefore: one is not a ruler in potency.

One either possesses authority, or one does not.

The Decisive Historical Analogy

After the East–West Schism, the Greek schismatics retained:

• valid orders,
• and external apostolic succession.

In this limited sense, one may speak of a certain apostolicity secundum quid, insofar as the sacramental line endures.

Yet the Church has never concluded from this that they belong to the Catholic hierarchy in any respect.

Rather, her consistent judgment is clear:

• they possess valid sacraments,
• but lack jurisdiction,
• and therefore stand outside the hierarchy as such.

This is decisive.

For if the notion of a “material hierarchy” had any theological validity, it would apply most fittingly in this case. Yet the Church does not employ such language, nor does she recognize in them any partial or qualified participation in her hierarchical structure.

The conclusion follows:

What lacks jurisdiction, even if it retains succession, does not constitute a hierarchy—neither simply nor secundum quid.

The Collapse of the Theory

The position seeks to maintain:

• a hierarchy without authority,
• a structure without form,
• a reality reduced to mere designation.

But the hierarchy is constituted essentially by its form; namely, jurisdiction.

Remove the form, and nothing remains but the name.

Hence, the distinction between secundum quid and simpliciter is here misapplied.

For it is used to suggest a partial reality where the formal principle is entirely lacking.

What results is not a hierarchy in a qualified sense, but a verbal construct without corresponding reality.

Summing Up: Away With The Misleading Illusion 

The notion of a “Catholic hierarchy secundum quid,” when applied to a body deprived of jurisdiction, is not a legitimate refinement of scholastic thought, but a deformation of it.

For in the Catholic understanding, a hierarchy is not constituted by name, succession, or external designation alone, but formally by sacred authority, namely; jurisdiction flowing from legitimate mission. Remove this, and what remains may retain certain material elements, such as valid orders or historical continuity; but no longer verifies the formal notion of a Catholic hierarchy.

Thus the question is not whether something remains in some respect, but whether that which remains suffices to ground the predication “Catholic hierarchy.”

It does not.

Analogy, if it is to be sound, must preserve proportionality. To transfer the metaphysical distinction of matter and form into the moral-juridical order in such a way that a purely material substratum is denominated “Catholic hierarchy” is to stretch analogy beyond its limits and into distortion. In this sense, the expression “Catholic hierarchy secundum quid” becomes misleading.

For it attributes the formal note of Catholicity where the essential principle, jurisdiction; is lacking.

What is proposed, therefore, is not a true hierarchy in a diminished mode, but a subject lacking the form required to be so called.

It is, in effect: a name without the formal principle, a title without authority, a shadow of structure without the reality that constitutes it.

And the Church of Christ is not built upon shadows, but upon realities; visible, juridical, and divinely instituted.

Therefore, no Catholic theologian, faithful to the principles of sound scholasticism, can admit without grave qualification the notion of a “Catholic hierarchy secundum quid” as applied to a body lacking jurisdiction.

Yes. A thing is named from its form, not from what remains when the form is absent. 

Such a usage sows not precision, but confusion; and must be rejected insofar as it obscures the formal nature of the Church’s hierarchy.