Against Ed Howard

©Lúcio Mascarenhas, Feb. 25, 2008

The Heresy of Matthew Nelson

Reference: http://www.geocities.com/livrant/against-matthew-nelson.html Against The Lefebvrist Heretic Matthew Nelson

My Dear Ed,

Thank you for your reply. I too am not anxious to correspond with you, and this will be my last mail, unless you reply, in which case I reserve to myself the right to make a counter-reply, as my duty before Christ to defend the Catholic faith.

Allow me to correct you: On the now-defunct "Genuine Sedevacantist" forum operated by "Jakob Lukich" alias "Michael Grimes" alias "Dr. Miguel Martinez" alias "Padraig" alias "Alan Vincent" alias "Pope Augustine I", etc., what we got to see was not, as you allege, "quite enough" of "allegations of heresy", etc., but a Feeneyite heretic-psychopath-megalomaniac baiting others for refusing to confess the Feeneyite heresy denying the legitimacy of the Baptisms of Blood and Desire.

I freely admit being an "extremist" for Christ, and I am not at all ashamed of being so. Catholics have gotten into the present mess by being too soft and compromising with heretics and apostates, and it is my intention to both learn from that and act upon that fact. I am a warrior for Christ, and there is no middleground, no "neutral zone", in the war between God and Satan.

I am as much an "extremist" as Pope St. Pius X, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. Lest you cavill at this, I am providing three sample quotes that drive home my point:

"Kindness is for fools! They (heretics) want to be treated with oil, soap, and caresses but they ought to be beaten with fists! In a duel you don't count or measure the blows, you strike as you can! War is not made with charity, it is a struggle, a duel. If Our Lord were not terrible he would not have given an example in this too. See how he treated the Pharisees, the sowers of error, the wolves in sheep's clothing, the traitors in the temple. He scourged them with whips!" — Pope St. Pius X

"A dog may bark in his master's defence, and am I to stand by silent when God's holy name is blasphemed? I would sooner die than forbear to speak" — St. Jerome, as quoted by Spirago-Clarke, The Catechism Explained, page 345.

"The crowning disloyalty to God is heresy. It is the sin of sins, the very loathsomest of things which God looks down upon in this malignant world. Yet how little do we understand of its excessive hatefulness! It is the polluting of God�s truth, which is the worst of all impurities. Yet how light we make of it! We look at it, and are calm. We touch it and do not shudder. We mix with it, and have no fear. We see it touch holy things, and we have no sense of sacrilege. We breathe its odour, and show no signs of detestation or disgust. Some of us affect its friendship; and some even extenuate its guilt. We do not love God enough to be angry for His glory. We do not love men enough to be charitably truthful for their souls" — Father Frederick Faber

In my webpages, including those that I have linked to my email in refutation of Matthew Nelson, I have conclusively proven that every member of the Lefebvrist sect is a heretic (http://www.geocities.com/livrant/lefebvrist_quotes.html & http://www.geocities.com/livrant/heresy_of_lefebvrism.html). I therefore do not need to prove this once again. I do not need lessons from you, least of all, given your flagrant dishonesty and hypocrisy in assailing the Holy Father, in what constitutes, and what does not constitute, heresy and defamation.

As an orthodox, faithful Catholic, I instinctively recognized Lefebvrism to be un-orthodox, to be heresy, right from day one, in 1992, when I became involved with the Catholic Resistance, and I incorporated that in my first major writing, Repair My Church, that I wrote in 1996, already twelve years ago (http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/rmc/repairmychurch.html). One does not require to be a Rocket Scientist to recognize that Lefebvrists are heretics, one merely needs to have a true Catholic faith. Your inability to accept the fact that Lefebvrists are heretics speaks volume about your faith, or lack of it.

Your anxiety to defend Matthew Nelson against being denounced for the heretic he is, and from what you call "defamation" is touching, extremely touching, and contrasts quite glaringly with your anxiety to slander and defame the Holy Father, casting the norms of honesty and truth into the dustbin in your hurry to misrepresent and rubbish the Pope! Hypocrisy has no limits, evidently!

This is remarkable: You have no objection or antipathy towards Feeneyite and Lefebvrist heretics, and treat them as genuine Catholic, but you are appalled that an orthodox Catholic might be Pope, and you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge him. You overflow with the milk of compassion and are full of brotherhood towards a vicious Lefebvrist heretic such as Matthew Nelson, who has nothing but contempt for Catholics, but you have nothing but venom for the Catholic Pope.

This is the mark of heresy. It is said, "Birds of a feather flock together", and you prove it. If you had a Catholic spirit, you would not exhibit this hypocrisy. But your hypocrisy, your double standards, your shameless love for heretics, and contempt for Catholics, proves that you are yourself a heretic, and that you are a stranger to the Sensus Catholici.

There are several of you who have already staged phony "conclaves" and who are working, like you and your "eminent" former colleague and host, "Jakob Lukich" alias "Michael Grimes" alias "Dr. Miguel Martinez" alias "Padraig" alias "Alan Vincent" alias "Pope Augustine I" alias "My Name is Legion" at the defunct "Genuine Sedevacantist" forum at organizing yet more "conclaves" the better to create more antipopes and a smokescreen of diabolic confusion to conceal the true Pope, Michael I, from sincerely seeking souls. Let me inform you, however, that these endeavors of Satan and of warfare against Christ, are futile and doomed to eventual failure, for Christ has already triumphed, and so shall His Vicar, Michael I, by the grace of God, Pope. All your mischief shall be in vain.

When Matthew Nelson says that "I could elect my wife as Pope", I take him at face value. I do not need, and do not accept you as his self-appointed interpretor. If Matthew meant otherwise, he could have spoken of any male member of his family, and he had no need whatsoever of speaking of his wife, mother, daughter, mistress, etc. That he did, only goes to prove that he believes that women can be ordained and consecrated. Given that plain and simple fact, it is evident that it is you, and not I, who is dishonest in this matter. Moreover, everyone is aware of the extreme chicanery and Byzantine bureaucracy of the Lefebvrists, who never tell the truth about themselves, insult everybody else, and then pose as martyrs when their own vileness is exposed. If the Lefebvirt sect opposed the ordination of women, they would have ticked off as important a lay representative as Matthew Nelson, part of the TAN Books business. It is in your interest to water down the monstrosities of the Holy Father's enemies, and to demonize the Holy Father, but that is no reason why I, least of all, should buy into your lies.

I find you pathetic. There are many fools and villains like you who pretend to be Catholic, but who prove, by their works, that they are strangers to the faith, come in as infiltrators and spies, and to misguide true Catholics. Unlike most others, however, you are not very significant. What does not differ among you is that all of you act like grotty schoolkids who whine when it comes to putting into practise what you pretend to stand for: Catholicism. You recoil from a restored Catholicism by a reflex that betrays the truth, the vileness that you harbor in your hearts. I have addressed this issue several times, and, not for you, but for the possible benefit of other souls, I provide the links to other pages that I have written on this subject:

I could say that you ought to be ashamed of yourself, but I know that I would be wasting my breath. Did not the Lord say, "Cast not bread before dogs, nor pearls before swine, lest they turn upon you and rend you"? Amen. I am done with you, a shameless and contemptible reprobate, one utterly lacking in sincerity. You go your way, after your father Satan; I go mine, after Christ my Savior and Lord. May you attain to your destination sooner than later, and may you reach the bosom of your father Lucifer, to enjoy the fruits of your works for eternity.

Lastly, thank you for declining my application for your group. I am deeply grateful for the favor.

Kind regards,

Lúcio Mascarenhas, Bombay, India
Secretary for Correspondence to His Holiness Michael I, by the Grace of God, Pope.

From Ed Howard
Date Feb 25, 2008 3:39 AM
Sub Re: Against the Lefebvrist Heretic Matthew Nelson

Lucio,

You have not proved that Matthew Nelson is a heretic therefore calling him such is defamation, and I have seen quite enough of that recently!

When Matthew wrote to you saying "I could elect my wife as Pope" he was being sarcastic (of David Bawden's "election") not realistic.. This means he was not realistically proposing women priests. Nor is Matthew Nelson a spokesperson for the SSPX. Therefore your conclusion that the SSPX are for the ordination of women is completely ridiculous.

Please don't write to me again unless you stop this extremist nonsense.

Ed

Ed Howard's Quibbles

©Lúcio Mascarenhas: Feb 25, 2008

On the now defunct "GenuineSedevacantist" forum, an Ed Howard wrote, as below, insulting the Pope. This is not a very important attack, and Howard — an insignificant "Mere Sedevacantist" or "Acephalist" heretic — does not merit much attention, but I will answer his lies nevertheless.

Howard alleges that the Pope was "desperate" to prove that there was no valid Catholic clergy left at the time of his election "so that he can justify his election with no clerical involvement." This is nonsensical, and Howard proffers no proof of this vile slander, leaving us with nothing but his own pontifical word for it. Moreover, Howard insinuates that a papal election that did not involve clerics is somehow suspect, which is innuendo; he nowhere provides us proof of this outlandish pretension, one that rubbishes two thousand years of Catholic history. It is either profound ignorance, or profound malice, that urges such stupid lies; the burden of proof is on malice, for even ignorance is culpable as being due to deliberate negligence in one setting himself up as a light of the Catholic Resistance.

Howard makes out as if the Pope's principal proof against the Antipope Roncalli is his taking the same title as the Antipope Baldassare Cossa, that is, "John XXIII". This is not so; reference to Roncalli using the same title as Cossa is relatively low-key.

I will admit that the Holy Father, then David Bawden, did err, together with Mrs. Benns, the principal co-author of their book that set the Agenda for the election, in the question of recycling of titular names. I have also pointed out this fact, along with another error that confused "Arian" with "Aryan". However, this does not serve as proof, as Howard would have it, against the legitimacy of the present Pope; quite on the contrary. To be ignorant of a insignicant fact that is not part of the Deposit of the Faith does not make one a heretic, least of all, disqualify one from being elected Pope. Howard, in his desperation, is grasping at straws to run-down the Pope. If we admit Howard's hypocritical and Pharisaical pretensions, we must deny the legitimacy of more than 80% of the historic Popes — including that of St. Peter, who denied Christ during His Passion, and who once again scandalized the faithful at Antioch by giving in to the Judaizers until rebuked by St. Paul the Apostle!!! Once again, we have Howard exhibit culpable contempt for the norms and principles of the Church, its history and traditions.

Regarding the schism and apostasy of Mrs. Benns, Howard is being a bit too ingenuous — and glaringly dishonest — by insinuating that her apostasy and schism is due to her "disillusionment" with the Holy Father, rather than the truth. The truth is that Mrs. Benns is the principal authoress of the book co-authored with the Holy Father, that she micro-managed it to the printing press stage and so is principally responsible for the errors in it, including the deliberate confusion made between the ancient heresy of Arianism, founded by a Persian-Egyptian, Arius, and the Nazi philosophy of Aryanism, etc., and that she seceded only because the Pope refused her demands to be governed by her will and "infallible magisterium" a la the Polish Mariavite schismatics, whose "Prophetess Maria" had similarly demanded of Pope St. Pius X, a Polish Italian, that he submit to be directed and governed by her! The Holy Father's website exposing the shenanighans of the Apostate Mrs. Benns is to be found at http://tbenns.vaticaninexile.com. It is dishonest — and hypocritical — of Howard to provide only Mrs. Benns' website without also providing the Holy Father's website on the subject.

Lúcio Mascarenhas, Bombay, India
Secretary for Correspondence to His Holiness Michael I, by the Grace of God, Pope.

from Ed Howard
date Feb 21, 2008 2:16 AM
subject Truth is One book

Mr Bawden is desperate to "prove" that there are no valid Catholic clergy left (at least by the time of his "election") so he can "justify" his "election" with no clerical involvement. However a lot of his "proof" is more like innuendo than rational argument.

He tries to "prove" that not only was Roncalli a heretic when he was elected, but all the cardinals should have known this, hence they fell from their positions.

One supposed piece of evidence is on page 24: "First of all, this man took the name and number of a previous antipope, an action unprecedented in history". This statement is false and demonstrates an astounding lack of knowledge about the papacy for someone who claims to fill the position.

Real popes often deliberately used the number of a previous anti-pope to demonstrate that that previous "pope" with same name and number was an anti-pope.

Just some examples that refute this claim:

Pope Theodore II 879 (previous anti-pope 687)
Pope John VIII 872-82 (previous anti-pope 844)
Pope Anastasius III 911-913 (previous anti-pope 855)
Pope Gregory VII 1045-6 (previous anti-pope 1012)
Pope Honorius II 1124-30 (previous anti-pope 1061-4)

Mr Bawden's most influential "elector" describes her disillusion here http://www.betrayedcatholics.com/pope_mike.html

Ed