"Traditionalism" And The Restoration Of The Church
(As An Institutional Instrument Of Salvation)

Overcoming The Factions' Spirit of Sectarianism

©Lúcio Mascarenhas.
[Copyright Terms & Conditions].
This article is written in response to the two articles that have been circulated as being from the authorship of Dr. Everard Heller in the December 2003 issue of the Einsicht (See here). My response falls into two parts:
  1. Firstly, an opportunity to set out what I believe are Canonical reasons why the "Thesis" of Michael Louis Guerard des Lauriers, called variously the Thesis of Cassiciacum, the Cassiciacum Thesis, the Formaliter-Materialiter Theory or Thesis, Sedeprivationism, Guerardism, and even "Ultra-Romanism" (a variant professed by J. Lawrence Case) is actually a heresy;


  2. Secondly, why the attitude of the "Mere" Sedevacantists, as typified by Dr. Heller himself, is itself schismatic and sectarian, and obstructs the "Restoration of the Church as an Institution of Salvation", to use the terminology that he himself uses.

The Heresy of Michael Louis Guerard des Lauriers
And Of His Party

  1. My argument against the Guerardist arguments of J. Lawrence Case — I had argued that an electee would be required to assent within reasonable time; failure to reply (or a defective reply) is to be taken as a refusal, and we are to proceed to seek other candidates.

    For an electee is not God, and the Church is not obliged to wait indefinitely upon him, to be held hostage to his failure to provide a categorical assent (i.e., one that is valid according to Catholic principles).

    Guerard des Lauriers (falsely) argues that Wojtyla was "validly" elected, but that he did not validly assent (i.e., in the Catholic sense).

    But this argument is incomplete; it must continue thus: But we are not expected to wait for ever for the valid assent of an electee; failure to provide valid assent dispenses the faithful from any claims by that once-electee.

    Completing Des Lauriers' false argument with this true ending thereby utterly destroys it (Guerard's argument) and thus also the very "Thesis" of Guerard des Lauriers.

    I also refer you to my reply to Ms. Helen Kalianemm.


  2. Presence of foreign and alien (that is, unauthorized) persons—"Cardinals" created by Antipopes Roncalli, Montini & Luciani—at the 2nd. 1978 conclave renders that conclave and its results null and void?


  3. Des Lauriers confuses result of public and manifest heresy. There are two distinct results, according to the class of heresy publicly adhered to:
    1. Some heresies have been officially condemned by the Church with Final and Definitive Authority, and with the added implication that one who holds to such is officially and terminally excommunicated, without need of sentence;


    2. Heresy that is only recognizable as heresy because it evidently contradicts a Truth of the Public Revelation, but which has not been formally defined by Magisterium, so that adherent does not cease to be Catholic, until formally judged and expelled by legitimate authority of the Church.
    The Modernist heresy, of Roncalli, Aggiornomento, Robber-Council "Vatican II", Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, etc., is of former category.


  4. I believe that Canon Law probably also deals with voluntary secession from the Church by individuals and groups, and the results thereof, and I believe that this is what has happened, and can be demonstrated, with the Antichurch, under Roncalli, his "Aggiornomento" and Latrocinium of "Vatican II".


  5. I believe that Des Laurier contradicts Canon Law prescriptions as to those who had formally fallen away into excommunication and schism, and who have later returned: I believe that Canon Law excludes the possibility of an automatic restoration to office.
It is necessary to stress that Des Lauriers was no ordinary person. He was a cleric, and a high ranking theologian, a professor at either the Angelicum or Gregorianum, Pontifical Universities in Rome. Such a person could not be ignorant of Canon Law; that he ignored the evident provisions of Canon Law and the consistent teachings of the Church over the millenia to fabricate a new solution, and one that does not better empower Catholics, but which evidently enslaves Catholics to heretics, shows his bad faith and heresy. It also demonstrates the bad faith of all his adherents.

I would like to make some suggestions that may be greeted with anger and rejection, yet are self-evident.

For one thing, both "Guerardism" and Lefebvrism are cognate or even more precisely, identical, heresies: Guerardism is articulated Lefebvrism, Lefebvrism is inarticulate Guerardism.

Secondly, and more controversially, it is evident that both Lefebvre and Des Lauriers were not honest Catholics, but actually enemy-agents sent in to spread discord among the Catholics, and more importantly, to divide and distract them, thus making them incapable of united action against the Modernist usurpations.

There are too many clues that point to Lefebvre being a Freemason, and none of these depend substantially on his connection with or choice to be ordained by, Achilles Leinart, a man later definitely exposed as a Freemason.

Principally, these lie in his (Lefebvre's) membership in and of the "Priory of Sion", a fact that can no longer be denied.

But the actions of Lefebvre, and the stratagems that created him as the "character" he played out, are made far more evident and undeniable when we consider the actions of Guerard des Lauriers as set out by Dr. Heller.

Heller's account make it evident beyond any doubt that Des Lauriers was merely an enemy-agent who came in solely to delude Catholics into a mistaken servitude to the heresiarchs of Roman Modernism. His dishonest behavior in procuring Episcopal consecration, his ingratitude and contumacy in opposing the Sedevacantism of Bishop Thuc, Drs. Heller and Hiller, etc., in favor of his own unwarranted and heretical innovation that commanded and commands an uncritical and unceasing slavery to heretics and schismatics, all make this clear as day. And, far more important, by comparison, we understand the actions of Lefebvre, his motivations, his actions....

Guerardism can be analogously compared to the (hypothetical?) case where some man in England pretends that those with Catholic tendencies are morally obliged not to depart from Communion with the Anglican "Archbishop of Canterbury" but remain in subjection to him by accepting him as his lawful superior, and praying for him to resume Communion with the Pope!

An "Anglican" Guerardism can thus be posited, which "recognizes" the validity and continuation in legitimate succession of the Anglican "clergy" and "hierarchy"; and which must therefore necessarily "deplore" and reject the establishment of a rival, Catholic hierarchy as being unwarranted and schismatic.... Such an "Anglican" Guerardism would reject the restored Catholic clergy as usurpers and interlopers!

The Schism Of The Sedevacantists
And Of The Mere Acephalous / Vagantes

"Restoration of the Church as an Instrument of Salvation" is what Dr. Everard Heller professes to seek; but that is not what his actions demonstrate. He rejects and contemns the efforts to elect a pope by the Church-at-large, which resulted in the election of Pope Bawden. He contemns and disparages Bawden—yet he wishes us to believe that he is loyal to Christ and desires the restoration of Holy Mother Church as it was, as it ought to be. There is an evident contradiction here.

Dr. Heller is wrong in stretching out the analogy of an army and its general, and treating it as an absolute—a rather foolish error for one who claims to be a Catholic!

For one thing, all Christians are soldiers: Miles Christi, Miles Regium Dei.

Secondly, Christ did not specify the means of electing the Pope, but left the legislation for that to the discretion of the Church.

Therefore, it is absurd to pretend that laws that cannot be observed (due to the en masse defection of Cardinals) thereby prevents the Church from electing itself a new Pope to continue the Succession of Popes.

Heller apparently pretends that such an election, as an extra-ordinary step, must necessarily be posted only and solely by Catholic bishops.

But this position is false: There are NO Catholic bishops, strictly speaking. Every of the present bishop of the Resistance has been made a bishop in a manner that is in violation of Canon Law; the exceptions that could be made would be only the bishops consecrated by Bishop Thuc himself, since he had a particular privilege to consecrate without Papal Mandate.

Again, at the end of the day, when one has finished making excuses for Bishop Thuc, one is still left with grave doubt as to his true motive and intelligence in his actions consecrating an eclectic bunch of men. It is a discredit to a bishop, and Canon Law denounces such a one, who is so credulous as to be taken advantage of and to consecrate totally unworthy men! Therefore, even the men who were consecrated by Bishop Thuc do not have any cause to boast of their standing.

That is, the uneven and blemished record of Bishop Thuc prevents any pretension that the bishops he consecrated could be considered, taken as a class, as being categorically orthodox Catholic bishops, so that any pretension by them, whether collectively or individually, cannot stand.

These bishops may—or may not—possess valid orders, but that is not what I am discussing here.

I am merely pointing out that they have been made bishops, or have put themselves forward to be made bishops in an unacceptable and irregular manner.

[I heartily and vehemently agree that emergency steps were necessary in order to secure the succession of valid orders. I however believe that it was and is far more urgent to secure first the election of the true and Catholic Pope to counteract the Antipope of the Roman Modernists, and to act as our center of unity.

I am sympathetic—in principle—to the actions that resulted in the several consecrations, but I object to these actions because they put the cart before the horse.

The Lefebvrists and most "Traditionalists" labor under a similar error—they consider the necessity of attending a "Mass" more important than Orthodox Ideology, with the results that have damaged innumerable souls!]

These bishops do not, therefore, have any legal standing in the Church. They have and can exercise no authority. They do NOT constitute the Magisterium. Therefore, these bishops are in fact in a deplorable state, and in urgent requirement of regularization.

By comparison, it cannot be said, in any manner of speaking, that the laity, taken as a whole, is in a deplorable state of being.

Therefore, it is only the Church-in-General, where the laity permits those who unauthorizedly sought and received the Episcopal character from among their own ranks, to co-participate with them after having joined them in abjuring all their errors, and confessing and abjuring their sins, who have the right to elect.

That is, it cannot be posited in any legitimate manner that it is only these bishops who can act collectively (via an "Acephalous Council" in the precedence of Pisa and Constance) who have this right exclusively, for this would be tantamount to an usurpation and a pretension to jurisdiction as being the only true basis of this their authority, which pretension would of itself vitiate and negate any such effort by them.

But it is also true that these Bishops do not represent one monolithic unity, but are, instead of being Bishops of the Catholic Resistance, strictly speaking, are actually the bishops of their particular ideological factions: Sedeprivationism and Sedevacantism, principally, with a lot of individuals also adding themselves as largely one-man parties.



I walked out of the Antichurch when I discovered that it is not the Catholic Church but the Church of Satan. I thereby became, for a brief time, a "Sedevacantist", one who believes that the See of Rome is, for the present, vacant, i.e., that there is no legitimate pope.

But I believed and believe that:
  1. The Papacy cannot ever cease to be;
  2. That vacancies cannot interrupt the succession of Popes;
  3. That the present vacancy is a privation permitted but not positively willed by God, existing principally due to the lack of faith and courage on the part of Catholics;
  4. That Divine Intervention as a means of providing the next pope, is incompatible with Catholic Theology;
  5. That the Church was and is always and eternally capable, being self-sufficient by the Provisions made by God, (in His final, terminal, and Definitive Public Revelation, which is Closed and cannot be added to), to supply itself always with a new Pope in order to continue the succession of Popes, regardless of how long there had been a vacancy; etc.
As a result, I could not remain for long a "Sedevacantist", but was obliged to proceed further to the position that is variously described as being "Conclavist" (which name I believe is a misnomer) and as "Ortho-Papist", a term I coined.

I could not remain Sedevacantist because Sedevacantism is merely a negative statement: It is capable and competent only of determining with certitude, from Catholic principles, that certain men, who are evidently, by their words and actions, heretics and schismatics of the "Modernist" persuasion, and therefore, who having incurred prior excommunication and exclusion from the Church, cannot be, in any manner of speaking, true Catholic popes.

Sedevacantism, however, vastly exceeds its abilities when it affirms categorically that the See of Peter is, in fact, vacant, at this time and moment: an affirmation that it is not competent to make based merely on the incontrovertible and self-evident fact that Modernist heresiarchs are not Catholic popes!

But Sedevacantism is not merely wrong (and this is in itself a serious error affecting the salvation of one's soul) in this matter, but it schismatically—and what is worse—contumaciously—constitutes itself a sect by rejecting and excluding any practical attempt to discover if a legitimate Pope exists or any effort to elect the Pope to fill the vacancy, if a vacancy is truly proven to have existed.

It is this that is the basis of its rejection of the Election of David Allen Bawden as Pope in July 1990.

[From my viewpoint, the "Sedevacantist" position would be analogous to the Catholic position denying that the Anglican "Archbishops of Canterbury", etc., are either true Archbishops, Bishops, Clerics, Primates, etc., or that they possess any status or jurisdiction in Christ's Church. So far, so good.

However, if an English Catholic went beyond this to claim that there is / was no Catholic hierarchy in England—I am speaking of the Catholic hierarchy restored under Cardinal Manning and as it was until 1958—then he exceeds his authority, power, ability and competence in making such an assertion.]

Such "Sedevacantists" pretend that they are "scandalized" by the profusion of men claiming to be Pope, with whom they ingenuously lump up Mr. Bawden, and having confused all these men in one indiscriminate mass, they contemn the whole lot of them.

As a matter of fact, it is obvious from Catholic principles, that a man cannot be made pope solely and entirely on the basis of a purported apparition (private revelation), of which, too, he himself is the principal, and most often, sole representative.

It could be that a man is named by Divine Intervention, but it must need to be a previously legitimated (private) revelation; but he would still need to be elected.

Any pretension to have been made Pope solely by "virtue" of a purported Private revelation, makes that purported Private Revelation a part of, or addition to, Public Revelation; one that must be necessarily accepted and admitted universally, just as Public Revelation, investing in it Divine Faith, as being necessary unto the salvation of every soul, for it is only on the basis of such an admission that one can admit to the claim of such a man to be Pope.

But it is precisely such a pretension that is absolutely excluded by Catholicism: Public Revelation cannot be added to, subtracted from or amended in any manner.

That is: Any such claim is necessarily heresy!

But the only true Catholic Principles are that the Church has always the right to elect itself its Pope, an action which does not amend Public Revelation, and into which (individual actions) men are not required to invest Divine Faith; that only the first person legitimately elected, and without any previous disqualification of heresy, schism, etc., is and can be accepted and acknowledged as the legitimate Catholic Pope.

Given these facts which are basic to the Catholic belief, it is not only wrong, but also contumacious—an act of contempt addressed, not to man but to God Himself, the Author of Catholic Faith—to lump up the men who base themselves on elections together with those who pretend to have been constituted Pope by putative Private Revelations.

And, when we address ourselves to this question, we quickly find that there is not a mass of men, but strictly speaking, only two (or three, if we count Lucianus Pulvermacher) men who were elected at different dates:
  1. Mr. David Allen Bawden, on 16th July 1990, as "Pope Michael";
  2. Fr. Viktor von Pentz, in 1994, at Assisi, Italy, as "Pope Linus II"; and
  3. Fr. Lucianus Pulvermacher, in 1998, as "Pope Pius XIII".
The last, Lucianus Pulvermacher, has been exposed as a heretic and Satanist, in that he contumaciously uses "Divination" (a form of superstition, and a tacit reliance on the aid and assistance of the Fallen Angels, as moving Supernatural powers behind such acts as "Divination", Planchette, etc.) by means of a pendulum or "divining rod", which practices were and are always forbidden; Pulvermacher, self-admittedly has been doing so consistently since his seminarian days, prior to his ordination pre-1958, and which he refuses to acknowledge as being wrong.

When undertaking an election, it is the duty of the Convenors to prove conclusively and publicly that there exists a vacancy, that the previous claimants are illegitimate for whatever stated reasons, etc. In the absence of any such public profession / protestation, any such attempt necessarily falls under the category of acts suspect of heresy, for there evidently cannot be two men both Pope at any one time.

In the case of Pentz, (as also with Pulvermacher), the Convenors / Proponents of these "election attempts" did not set out why they believed the Papacy vacant, therefore rendering their actions null and void, and themselves as being suspect of heresy.

However, in the case of Mr. Bawden, he and Mrs. Stanfill-Benns, the Convenors and Proponents of the 1990 Election, did set out their reasons why they believed the Papacy vacant, and why the various existing claimants are to be disregarded.

So that, finally, we are forced to the conclusion, in Catholic Principles, that Mr. Bawden is and was the lawful Pope since his election on July 16, 1990, or we must cease to claim to be Catholic, for we have terminally constituted ourselves schismatics, at the very least!

Objections To David Bawden

Although few (I have seen no public statement of opposition based on ideology or discipline; I disregard that of Hans Lorenz, a man who is beneath contempt) publicly state the grounds of their rejection/objection to David Bawden as Pope Michael, it quickly becomes evident what the real cause of the refusal of the vast majority of the "Traditionalist Movement" to participate in the election that made Bawden Pope, and to acknowledge him as lawful Pope.

We are not concerned here with the Lefebvrists and the Guerardists, whose internal logic makes the recognition of any one else, except the Modernist heresiarch usurping the Vatican and the buildings associated with the See of Rome, as the true Pope of the Catholic Church, impossible.

We are also not concerned here with either the "Home Alone" party, which wishes to construct itself into another dead, cut-away branch, a la the French Petit Eglise, in their own Disneyesque dreamworld; nor with the Sirianists — those who dream of a fantasy and occulted pope who will someday emerge from nowhere, to lead them to the Promised Land!

We are rather concerned with those who define themselves as "Sedevacantist", for it is these who are still the closest to Catholic Orthodoxy, though evidently, not close enough!

The Sedevacantist objections to Pope Bawden are dual; one lesser, the other major.

The lesser is that the Sedevacantists are themselves into a schismatic spirit of self-sufficiency, and, despite all their pious cultus of the Popes and of the Institution of the Papacy, resent any attempt to foist upon them a Pope, as that would end their free self-indulgence and self-exemption from the Laws of God and Church, under the pretension of "Epikeia".

The Major Objection, however, is that of sinful pride and of a false self-conceit. These are men who consider themselves the Stalwarts—the intellectual heavyweights—of the Catholic Resistance, and who consider Bawden to be a minnow—an intellectual lightweight—and therefore they cannot stomach the suggestion that Bawden could be the Pope.

On the contrary they resent the attempt by Stanfill-Benns and Bawden to conduct the Election of the Pope to fill the vacancy; they resent the presumption of these "little" folks at electing the Pope, and at electing one such as Bawden as Pope, and believe themselves better candidates to be elected Pope than Bawden.

But such an attitude is schismatical and opposed to Catholicism. Catholicism has never made a cult of the man who is (or would be) Pope. On the contrary, being made Pope is considered a great honor bestowed on the electee.

At issue is the tacit Positive Will of God in selecting Bawden as the man to fill the vacant Papal position.

It is possible that God could and would have selected another man more worthy. Yet, given that none were willing to trust God and proceed with the election, God willed it that he who acted with courage and fortitude should be favored.

It is the Plan of God that those who delude themselves with self-conceits should be sent away empty-handed, and that those whose faith is like that of small children, absolutely trusting Him even when all things look impossible, be rewarded.

Be as it may, Bawden was validly elected, and no man can take the Papal position away from him merely on the grounds that he is "insignificant".

On the contrary, I warn all men, and especially every of the Sedevacantists that they are putting their salvation at grave jeopardy, and committing the grievous sin of presumption by resisting the expressed and accomplished Will of God in making Bawden Pope.

Schismatic Conspiracy To Foist Another Antipope?

Lastly, any attempt, as suggested from Dr. Heller's comments on Bishop Davila-Gandara, or as suggested from Bishop Davila-Gandara's comments, must necessarily imply a Schismatical act, and an act of supreme contempt of and towards Christ and His Church, if it means that these people (the Germans, the Mexicans and the US Sedevacantist bishops of this party) are setting themselves up for "electing" another man as Pope, when that office is already legitimately filled by the election of David Bawden.

This is exactly what one party has already done—that of Dr. Mrs. Elizabeth Gerstner & Co., whose "conclave" at Assisi in 1994, resulted in Fr. Viktor von Pentz being "elected" as Pope Linus II. This man is totally abandoned by God, being provided with no resources and forced to earn his bread by laboring as a private security-watchman in England!

The fate of Franco Munari must also be borne in mind. This man was made a bishop and assigned the region of Rome for his area of operation (or so I have been told), which was an extremely schismatic act, for only the Pope can be Bishop for Rome. This man then underwent a particularly deep crisis of faith, which he abandoned and began to live as a layman in Madagascar.

Any similar effort by Heller, Davila-Gandara, etc. will end with the same fate.

As "bishops" (I acknowledge that they very probably possess valid orders, but deny that they have either jurisdiction or lawful status in the Church), these bishops do not constitute the Magisterium, or the continuation of the Magisterium (except only in potential).

The Magisterium, however, due to the en masse defection of bishops, is not lost, but is reduced to a vestige, and is vested in the Church-at-large, from which it can and must be re-propagated.

It can only be re-propagated by the election of the next pope [accomplished in David Bawden], as the first and only legitimate step that Catholics are permitted, and by submission to him, and by him supplying the Church with the particular governors of the particular churches, with bishops with jurisdiction.


Lúcio Mascarenhas
©Lúcio Mascarenhas.
[Copyright Terms & Conditions].
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1