To Mr. David Bawden, aka Pope Michael I
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your article, Pope Pius XII, Controversial
Pope. However, while I find it informative, I need to state the
following:
I think that you are the better of the three putative 'elected' papal claimants
- 'Linus II' or Victor von Pentz has still failed to provide a reason for
his subsequent claim, and now we know that 'Pius XIII' or Lucian Pulvermacher
is a fraud and as immoral a man as any of the Revolutionaries that carried
out the Modernist Deformation and schism of 1958 - 1965. (I do not consider
Fr. Bob Zhong, 'Pius XIV,' as a credible contender.)
However, nevertheless, your 'election' is gravely defective, so much so as to render it null. I have pointed
out the errors in my article, Sad Misadventures,
and I stand by it. I cannot, in conscience, see that you are the pope.
As I have had occassion to tell you before, because I think that you are
the better of the lot, I would have considered supporting a process for
supplying you with the papacy by 'accclamation,' if the suggestion would
find favour with others. However, I find that you are deficient in your
knowledge of the faith in many things, and are, apparently, influenced by
Protestantism, whose jargon you somewhat echo, which are serious defects.
I support a process that would bring all the legitimate various factions
- your's, von Pentz's, other 'Conclavists,' Sedevacantists, followers of
Guerard des Lauriers' Thesis, etc. to thrash out issues and to proceed thereafter
with an election of the pope. I believe that, by and large, this is what
St. Gabriel also seeks.
I do not agree with your position that Popes possess the Charism of Indefectibility. I had already pointed this out in response to an article you feature on your website, entitled, AN PAPA HERETICUS DEPONI POTEST, by a Jean Andre Perlant. I tried to find the article I wrote in response, but after searching high and low, I realize that I must have mistakenly deleted it while updating my site in February - March this year.
In my response, I had taken the citations from various sources, as found in Michael Dimond's Has Rome Lost the Faith?1, and put them in chronological order. The purpose - to show how Perlant is wrong in his interpretation that the Holy Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, 1870 A.D., taught Papal Indefectibility. This is made evident by the fact that there was no change in the teachings of theologians both before and after this Council, that a pope can fall and defect from the faith, thus losing office. If the Council did teach this, thus acting, apparently, to close definitely a subject that was till then open, the fact would have been reflected in post-Conciliar teachings between 1870 and 1958. As a matter of fact, it is not, thus evidencing against the Perlant interpretation.
I had a controversy, of sorts, with a priest of the Resistance, based in the US, on the same subject that Perlant interprets. My position was, and is, that what the Council was teaching, in addition to Papal Infallibility, was the Indefectibility of the particular Roman Church, also known as the Church of Rome.
When the Catholic Church talks of the Roman Church or of the Church of Rome, it does not mean the Universal Church of Christ, the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Catholic Church, but merely the Church that is in Rome - the Diocese of Rome, Italy.
This Church possesses, as I understand the Council of the Vatican to be teaching, the Charism of Indefectibility, distinctly separate and in addition to that possessed by the Universal Church. The position taken by my correspondent (in this controversy) was that the terms Roman Church and Church of Rome meant the Universal Church. The controversy can be seen at Roman Indefectibility. Another relevant page is Romanism
Thanking you,
Yours truly,
Prakash J. Mascarenhas
Michael Dimond: I am aware that he is accused of being a Feeneyite. I do not know. I do know, however, that I am no Feeneyite. I merely seek to use Dimond's article as a resource for material I need. It is open to anyone to prove that the quotations are tampered with or falsified, and I will accept the proofs and modify accordingly.