General Post To A Lefebvrist List

©Lúcio Mascarenhas, Dec 9, 2007

I have certain points to make. This is also in refutation of the thread "Sedevacantists get a REAL bad name here... ". I have read most arguments, except that of Cletus, which, considering the facts, his "rationality" and "Catholic faith", I do not see any reason to.

It is my understanding that people, in objecting to "Sedevacantism", ask: "What authority have you to judge and depose a putative pope?"

I think that this is getting things rather wrong. The question should be, "What is your authority to dispense a manifest and public heretic and make him Pope?"

The Catholic Church distinguishes between public and manifest heretics, and occult ones. Occult heretics remain members of the Church; public and manifest heretics do not.

There is also the distinction between automatic excommunication, and excommunication that needs to be formally imposed, that is not automatically incurred.

If I were to teach something that the Catholic Church has never formally condemned, I could still be a heretic, but I would not have incurred automatic excommunication. Automatic excommunication is also called excommunication latae sententiae, if I have it right.

Pope Paul IV, in his Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, formally legislated that public and manifest heretics can never attain to office in the Church, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.

Certain persons, principally, but not exclusively from amongst the adherents of Marcel Lefebvre, have pretended that Cum ex Apostolatus Officio has been abolished. Fr. Eric Simonot advised me that it was "obrogated" by the publication of the Code of Canon Law, 1917.

But the Code of Canon Law, 1917, explicitly denies that it is a revolution in Church Law; denies that it negates and annuls all previous law; affirms that it is a Codification of all previous laws; affirms that in case of doubt regarding the meaning of any particular section of the Code, reference must be made to the original law, so that means that the original law remains in force. Also, the Code, in Canon 188, cites its authority as Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.

Again, it is commonsense that the law as codified by Pope Paul IV was not an innovation, but a restatement of Divine Law: A non-Catholic cannot rule the Catholic Church.

Therefore, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio remains in force.

Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors, and in the Decrees of the Vatican Council (the only Catholic Council held at the Vatican to date), 1870, imposed penalties on those who held and taught certain errors.

Pope St. Pius X in his several legislations condemning the heresy of Modernism, also imposed penalties on those who held and taught certain errors.

Antipope John XXIII-II, or to give him his proper name, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, taught the heresies condemned by Popes Pius IX, Pius X, etc., long before his purported election, and continued to do so after, and his entire program was to De-Catholicize the Church and to convert it to the Modernist heresy.

This program was continued by Antipope Paul IV, and by the Robber Council (Latrocinium) "Vatican II", and formally adopted.

This constitutes an act of formal schism and apostasy, the foundation of a new sect alien to the Catholic Church.

Brian Harrison has claimed that Pope Pius XII lifted the prohibition against those who incurred excommunication from attending the Conclave. He then made this an argument that this also entitles them to be elected and to become lawful Catholic Popes, so that they would have benefitted from some kind of posited implied facilitation. But it is a fact that Brian Harrison has lied and has deliberately suppresed the full truth of what Pope Pius XII legislated. That is, however, another subject, and I have dealt with it in my webpage in refutation of Brian Harisson. This is merely referred to here to pre-empt the usual lame recourse to Brian Harisson's lies in defence of the Modernist Antipopes as "lawful Catholic Popes".

I repeat here my initial question: Who has the authority to dispense individual persons and groups of people, who have flagrantly incurred excommunication for publicly holding to and teaching particular heresies formally proscribed by the Catholic Church, and to which are attached certain penalties, including that of automatic expulsion / excommunication from the Catholic Church?

It is my understanding that only a lawful Pope can ordinarily reconcile such heretics to the Church, thus paving their way to subsequent election. But it is precisely that such has not occured. And for reconciliation, it is also necessary for these persons to formally repudiate their errors, which they have never done.

It is therefore my understanding that individuals and groups that affirm that certain manifest and public heretics are nevertheless lawful Catholic Popes, usurp for themselves the authority of a true and lawful Catholic Pope in order to facilitate / make a pretended dispensation from the effects of excommunication incurred, and of effecting a pretended reconciliation with the Catholic Church, even when no public and formal repudiation of heresy and apostasy has been tendered.

That, then, begs the questions: When did such persons (self-appointed facilitators for manifest and public heretics) become Pope; when did they authoritatively act in order to so dispense and so reconcile?

And also: When did they resign to make way for the present Roman antipopes?

Coming to other points:

It is not for the first time that mankind sees heretics sitting in Rome and pretending to be lawful Popes. Both the Donatist and the Novatian schisms produced Antipopes residing in Rome. Merely because a papal claimant resides in Rome does not make him legitimate, as if his heresy ceased to be heresy purely because some superstitiously believe that residence in Rome exonerates one from heresy and schism! (Reference, article on the Donatist heresy in the Catholic Encyclopedia).

It has been the constant teaching of the Church that a mere layman can be elected Pope, and many Popes were laymen at the time of their election (e.g., Pope St. Fabian). To deny or to insinuate that laymen cannot be elected Pope is a heresy, and one that strikes at the very heart of Catholicism. Effectively, the argument made by these people is that a Catholic layman cannot become Pope, but a non-Catholic and flagrant and public heretic, who has openly incurred excommunication latae sententiae, can and has become lawful Catholic Pope, and cannot be rejected, Pope Paul IV's law to the contrary notwithstanding.

When it comes to an election, with regards to persons standing in relationship to each other as father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, etc., such relationships have no value; and the only criteria is whether they are true Christians or not, and whether they are eligible as electors.

In an extraordinary election by the Universal Church, all its members, lay or clerical, are eligible to participate, regardless of sex. Catholicism does not discriminate between the sexes; it does not institutionalize Sexism; it is only the priesthood that is forbidden to women, for theological reasons.

This is unlike Islam, where women have a subordinate role, not only on earth, but also in heaven, where, those women who attain (to heaven) do so only to serve as objects for the sexual gratification of men who attain (to heaven; the concept of "Jannat al Firdaus").

In Catholicism, both men and women have souls that are, in their essence as souls, equal, beyond the distinction of gender, and designed to potential equally enjoy the Beatific Vision. The only criteria for discrimination is personal merit, not sexuality. This is also proven in practice, as Mary, the Mother of God, is now and forever, the highest of all created beings, Queen of the Saints, Queen of Heaven: Amen.

The Church, as a perfect society, has always the power to elect to itself a true and Catholic Pope; a lay election would fall within the definition of extra-ordinary means of electing the Pope.

It is the formal teaching of the Church, last restated by Pope Pius XII, that a layman elected Pope immediately attains to the fulness of the Apostolic power and authority, and that he does not attain to the fulness of the Papal power only upon his ordination, consecration and or coronation. To deny this is to deny the Catholic faith. He who pertinaciously denies the Catholic faith in even only one point, denies it whole, and no longer remains a Catholic (as Pope Leo XIII reiterates).

Therefore, a layman elected Pope and assenting, immediately becomes Pope; immediately becomes Roman Pontiff; immediately becomes Bishop of Rome, even when he does not possess the Episcopal Order. To affirm otherwise is to affirm heresy.

This was also one of the Heresies adopted by the Roman Modernist sect, on the basis of which they deny that a Pope Stephen, a priest who had been elected Pope, but who died before his coronation, belongs on the list of legitimate Popes.

Several heretical sects retain valid sacraments, but that does them no good. On the contrary, several sects have jettisoned the true and valid sacraments, as did the Anglicans at the instigation of such men as Thomas Cranmer, an ultra-Protestant. Both Pope Leo XIII and Pius XII in Apostolicae Curae and Sacramentum Ordinis, pointed out that when the rites are mangled with deliberate malicious intent so that the sacraments are not confected, then the rites are invalid, as with the Anglicans. So did the BogusOrdo sect of Vatican II. Men ordained according to the Montinian Ordinal of 1969 remain laymen; priests consecrated according to this Ordinal, remain priests. Joseph Ratzinger was ordained a priest according to Catholic rites, and so possesses the mark of being a Catholic priest imprinted on his soul, which he can never lose; but, his consecration being under the Protestant Montinian Ordinal, he never became a Bishop.

The truth was never decided by numbers. When man rebelled against God, the majority of mankind was against Truth. When Enoch walked with God, the majority of mankind was against Truth. When Noe walked with God, the majority of mankind was against Truth. When Abraham walked with God, the majority of mankind was against Truth. Moses was very often in a minority amongst the Israelites migrating from Egypt to the Promised Land. The Prophets Elias, Elisha, Jeremias, Isaias, etc., all walked with God while the rest of the Jews were against Truth. And even the Jews, as the "People of God", a role they regularly and chronically rebelled against, repudiating Truth, were but a minority amongst all mankind. When Truth became incarnate and walked amongst us, the majority of the Jews rejected Him and crucified Him, and persecuted His Church. The Church never included the majority of mankind, and even within, it was hardly true that the majority, at any time, were with God, for the Church was and is like a net let down into the sea and drawing up good fish and bad fish. When Athanasius of Alexandria stood, he stood pretty much by himself. When Sophronius of Jerusalem stood against the Monothelites, he stood pretty much by himself.

Therefore, that the majority of men, even the majority of "Traditionalists", reject His Holiness Pope Michael I is not a Catholic argument against him.

All Trads, whether adherents of Lefebvre, of Guerard des Lauriers (Sedeprivationism), Sedevacantists, Home-Aloners, etc., stand condemned before God and His Church because they do not adhere to the Truth, Christ Jesus. They condemn themselves because they do not conform to Christ. In insulting the Holy Father, His Holiness Pope Michael I, Bishop of Rome, men do not condemn him, but insult and condemn Christ and His principles.

Men can slander and persecute the Holy Father as a "nut case" but it is they who are in thrall of Satan, and who are actively working for their eternal damnation.

No one assented to the Apostasy except deliberately, e en if in silence. It is impossible that such heresies and blasphemies as have been uttered by Antipopes John XXIII-II, Paul VI, Vatican II, etc., could have got past orthodox Catholics without objection.

All those who celebrate and attend services "una cum" public and manifest heretics, who, in addition to their numerous crimes and blasphemies and usurpations against the Catholic Church, add to these with the grave crime of usurping the name and form of the Catholic Papacy, sin against Christ by deliberate intent. No person is considered excused in the external forum, although invincible ignorance can act in the internal forum to exculpate. However, the nature of the beast is such that invincible ignorance cannot be legitimately claimed. Claiming good faith is not excuse enough. Every soul has the duty of seeking out the Truth at all times and to seek and follow God, and negligence in doing so is not an excuse.

Regards,

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

P.S.: The "arguments" about the "heresies" of Popes Marcellinus, Liberius, Honorius, John XXII, etc., are nonsensical, and have already been suitably refuted. This is not, however, the place or time to refute these anti-Catholic attacks.

Crisis in the Church? What Crisis?
It took me long, about ten years, before I came to acknowledge and submit to His Holiness Pope Michael I, but long before that, even before I realized that the Church which I had joined, was not the Catholic Church, and withdrew from it Sept. 8, 1993, that I realized that there was no real "crisis" in the Church. This was after about nine months of study.

A crisis is something that happens to you; it is not something that you do to yourself. A body under attack, whose basic self-belief is under challenge from without can be described as being in a state of crisis.

But the present disturbance was produced from within, and is deliberately and consciously and actively sustained from within.

It is wrong to claim that "there is a Crisis in the Church". There is none. What is happening, in truth, is that a host of heretical parasites have infilterated the Church, and have seemingly seized the highest office, the better to seduce souls to damnation. When one recognizes this fact, and refuses anymore to be a dupe of these apostate vermin, one is suddenly faced with the fact that this artificial, artificially produced and sustained, "crisis" is over. All that is left is to restore the Church, and the first steps were taken in that regard in Kansas in 1990.

It takes courage to walk the lonely path, in the face of the jeers of mankind. But mankind, and the majority opinion of mankind is not the means to one's salvation. Fidelity to God, even more so in the teeth of majority opposition, is what will ensure one's salvation. The herd goes down the smooth broad road to damnation.

They who fall down and worship the wolves; they who sacrifice the fattened kine - the sacrifice of a false "loyalty" - to the wolves of Satan are not the ones who are fighting Satan and apostasy, but they are the other army of Satan, working to ambush souls fleeing from Satan's main army.

These are far from "Modern Athanasiuses". To describe them as such is to insult St. Athanasius.

Regards,

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

In Defense of True Catholicism
Various kinds of persons adhere to the Anti-Church, to the Great Protestant Whore of Babylon, the Bogus Ordo Saeculorum.

There are outright Modernists, which include the pragmatists who seek a gradual revolution, such as Karol Wojtyla, Joseph Ratziner, etc., and the Rapidists, such as Hans Kung, etc.

There are the Pentecostals, the Charismatics or, more properly, Crackmatics. There are also the Marxists or Communists, Liberation Theology, represented by such as Manuel Ortega, Ebo Morales, Hugo Chavez, etc.

I live in India or Hindustan, among Hindus and Muslims, where, according to the heresy of Ecumenism, "Christians" are actively taught by words and by deeds by the Fake Catholic Church to accept the false demon-gods of Hinduism and Mahomettanism as equivalents for the True God, Elohim-Yahweh. Whenever I challenge BogusOrdians on this, they pretend that since they do not personally accept the heresies of Ecumenism, etc., they are exculpated.

But this is a false argument.

Every soul that is publicly a member of a sect that is formally an enemy of Christ, that formally wages war against Christ, His Gospel and His One Holy Catholic Church, such as the Anti-Catholic or Fake Catholic Church does, is also personally an enemy of God, and is personally liable for being a member of a criminal organization. There is no excuse except invincible ignorance, but neglect of one's duty to seek and learn the truth is proof that invincible ignorance does not exist.

Thus, every soul that adheres to or attends a service of the groups centered on Marcel Lefebvre and Gerard des Lauriers (the heretical sect of Sedeprivationism), is personally culpable before God of being a member of a criminal organization that is actively waging war against Christ.

See also http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/mystand.html

Regards,

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