Where is the Church Today?
Resolving the Modernist Crisis

© Lúcio Mascarenhas. URL: http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/awa.html

Some years ago, a correspondent wrote me:
Dear Mr. Mascarenhas,

I am emailing you with a few questions:
  1. Does the Catholic Church have a Pope?

  2. If not, would you happen to know of a group that is planning to elect the Pope?

  3. Since there is very little unity in the church, do you think it would be a good idea to contact every papal claimant (who is ready to resign the papacy), every sedevacantist cleric, and finaly every sedevacantist layperson to hold a conclave to elect a true pope?
I thank you for taking the time to read my email and may God bless you.

Yours Truly,

This is my response:
According to the rules of the faith, the Pope is usually elected by a College of Cardinals — who are the Canons of the Cathedral Church of St. Peter on the Vatican Hill.

The Church of Rome is the only Community to have more than one Cathedral, the other being the Cathedral Church of St. John on the Lateran Hill.

Given that the Canons of the Vatican have all fallen away or otherwise ceased to exist, the right to elect the pope passes to the Canons of the Lateran.

If these too have all fallen away or otherwise ceased to exist, the right passes on to the general community of the Church of Rome.

Given that the Local Community of the Faithful in Rome, the Church of Rome is incapable for any reason to supply themselves with their bishop and thereby the Universal Church with its head, the Universal Church has the power to act to supply this deficiency, this lack of its head.

The normal method for the Universal Church to act is by means of an Ecumenical and General Council.

Such were Pisa and Constance during the "Great Western Schism".

Such a Council is called an Acephalous Council, because unlike normal Councils, it has not been summoned by the legitimate pope.

Given, however, that all bishops have fallen away or ceased to exist or are inordinately incapable of acting in college to elect the pope, then the Universal Church in General has the power to supercede them and act to supply itself this urgent want.

It must be borne in mind that any such action to supply the pope cannot be claimed to create in the body so acting a right to permanently thereafter elect the pope. Such an election belongs to the category of extra-ordinary actions in the life of the Church, and once this crisis has been solved, the Church returns to its normal methods of life and government.

Next, let us consider the hypothetical scenario where, when one group of persons have called for and convened an election, and another group, in reaction, and in order to create a rival claimant, conducts a parallel election.

It is my understanding that unless the second and latter groups prove that there is a serious deficiency in the action and beliefs of the prior group and of its principals, the claims of the latter group(s) is to be regarded as malicious and schismatic.

Let us come to specifics.

As of this date, there are some twenty men (and women) claiming to be the Pope.

The largest bunch of them claim that they had been made Pope by our Lord Christ Jesus, God the Father, God the Holy Ghost, Mother Mary, etc., etc., in private apparitions.

However, such claims are unacceptable and anti-Catholic. [I sincerely do not have either the appetite or the energy to go into those arguments here once again, therefore, I will refer you to my reply to Mr. Daniel Jones, a heretic.]

Putting aside this Circus of Clowns & Pretender Popes, we find that there are merely three men who had been elected in some manner or the other.

In 1989, under the impetus of two Americans acting, first in parallel, then in concert, namely Mrs. Teresa Stanfill-Benns and Mr. David Allen Bawden, an election was called for. Finally, only six persons choose to participate in the election, gathering on July 16, 1990, and which resulted in the election of Mr. David Bawden as Pope.

Mr. Bawden took for himself the name Pope Michael, in honour of Pope Leo XIII's Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, dedicating the Church to his protection, after receiving an awful revelation of the plans of Satan to overthrow the Church.

Subsequently in 1994, a group based largely in Europe convened and proceeded to an election, creating Fr. Victor von Pentz, a German-South African, as "Pope Linus II."

Before proceeding to the election, this group did not set out any reason to show that the papacy is vacant and the election of Pope Michael was null and void. That demonstrated that this election — of "Linus II" — was malicious and schismatic.

Lastly in 1998, a German-American, Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher gathered around himself a group and staged a further election where he, being "elected," took to himself the name "Pope Pius XIII."

Before proceeding to the election, this group did not set out any reason to show that the papacy is vacant and the elections of Pope Michael and of "Linus II" were null and void. That demonstrated that this election — of "Pius XIII" — was malicious and schismatic.

[I do not say that each and every person who participated in these actions were deliberately doing wrong. There is what the Church calls "Invincible ignorance"; which excuses. However, the claims, as such, judged in the external forum demonstrate corporate maliciousness and a schismatic attitude.]

Pulvermacher's closest associate in this "election" was an Australian, Gordon Bateman. Later, Bateman discovered that Pulvermacher had been a practising Satanist — using the divining pendulum — since his seminarian days, as a result of which he had incurred automatic excommunication since that time and therefore was ineligible for election anyway.

Bateman, and his relatives, the Mildenhalls, set up the St. Gabriel's Group in order to bring together the various groups into unity and, if necessary, unite the various claims by having the claimants stand down and electing anew.

From the Catholic viewpoint, the election of Pope Michael is binding and final and is not negotiable.

Till the time that I arrived at finality on the claim of Pope Michael, I supported the program of the St. Gabriel Group — and as a matter of fact, I too attempted a similar program. Today, however, I cannot, in conscience, accept as morally licit, such a program.

I believe that from the Catholic viewpoint, such a program is unacceptable and derogates from the rights of the rightful pope, towards whom Catholics have merely the right to submit and acknowledge him.

However, even from the practical viewpoint, such a program is based on a false, ecumenical attitude. It treats groups that are contemptuous of the faith, who have set themselves up as de facto self-contained, independent "Churches" or sects, as equals with that Group that is centered on the obedience to the true Pope. It sets the True Pope on the same level as charlattans and other riffraff who have arrogated to themselves the papacy on the pretence of a "divine" elevation to that office.
Kind regards,

Lúcio Mascarenhas

  1. Pope Michael's website is: http://www.VaticanInExile.com
  2. Next: Some Objections to Pope Michael

Your Difficulties with Pope Michael

By Lúcio Mascarenhas, Jan 29, 2008

After years of dilly-dallying, this correspondent A.W.A. finally in 2008, after prodding, came out of the closet with pretended "difficulties" against the Holy Father, and exempted himself from submission. This is the correspondence, with my refutation of his pretensions — Lúcio.
Dear A.W.A.,

Please find my reply in red interspersed between your words:


Allow me to start this letter off by stating clearly that I am not a traditionalist. Traditionalism has failed to provide spiritual guidance to thousands through a lack of leadership and a grave misunderstanding of doctrine.

You are right that, taken holistically, the Traditionalist movement has been a failure. Indeed, even a non-starter. The truth is, however, more complex. There are good traditionalists, and then there are the plants of Satan, who are there only in order to confuse souls and to mislead them, lead them into ambushes and prevent their escape from the Great Modernist Apostasy. Therefore, although it may sound like a contradiction of what I have stated here before, I re-affirm that Traditionalism in itself, pure and simple, as understood by Pope St. Pius X, and excluding the false Traditionalists, which is most, is in itself a good and beneficial thing. I am a Traditionalist, and I am proud of it, not ashamed of it, and I have no complaints. That is, re-affirming the definition of Traditionalism, not as the heresy condemned by Pope Pius IX, but according to the definition praised by Pope St. Pius X. The two Traditionalisms are not the same.

As of now, I am not sure where I stand in means of religion, though at times I feel drawn to Eastern Orthodoxy.

I can understand what you are going through. I went through much the same for more than ten years before I could find certainty. As for the Photianist heretics, I request you not to allow yourself to be beguiled by false external mythologies, but hold to the internal truth that these people too are agents for Satan, and are not of Christ. Photianism, like every other heresy and schism, is in its essential a negation of the Gospel of Christ Jesus, lip service apart.

"Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd'" - Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam.
In My own defense, I have to look out for my own physical needs, not be a mindless trade unionist, poor and hungry. As of now Canada's economy is in poor state, much due to the Socialist-Zionist minded "conservative" government that we have. This is one of the main reasons that I wish to pursue such a career, as many others are underpaid and do not give conservative minded folks like myself the means to live.

Keep in mind as well, that secular institutions of learning are not by any means "evil". It is in secular institutions of learning that alternative fuel sources are created to reduce carbon emissions. It is in these institutions that Our Doctors are trained to save lives. It is in these institutions that archaeologists are taught to dig up artifacts from days of old. You cannot for a second tell me that these institutions are evil, or that they even have ignorant professors.

My Master of Divinity (degree) would permit me to teach at a university level, thus allowing me the means to live. As I recall, the church has no hang-ups about people living a comfortable life without financial struggle. If so, I think an immediate revision of doctrine is needed.

I can understand where you are coming from; however, my understanding of the situation has reached far beyond such thinking, and is now heavily Christocentric. I will not, however, press the point now, and am not required to do so by Catholicism. Go ahead and study, but study more the faith, and be you on your guard against the snares of the Devil, who prowls about like a lion in order to devor souls. Someday, perhaps, you will realize that there is no middle ground between God and Satan, and that everyone is either for God or against Him, and that Secular Academia, like all the rest of the World, is at War with Christ.

As towards submitting to the Holy Father, it is my understanding that the man you call "Holy Father" is one David Bawden. I find fundamental flaws in His election as "Pope". The main flaw is that there was not a single clergyman in the conclave. He himself, to this date, after almost eighteen years of being "pope" has not yet been consecrated as Bishop. There is something wrong here. I understand as well that he was elected by a conclave of friends and family, not an unbiased college of cardinals. Consider this not an attack upon Mr. Bawden but a plea for him to step down from his current "office."

Thank you for being frank, if only at long last, and only after being prodded. Your "difficulties" with Pope Michael are false and inspired by those persons whose very animus is anti-Christian. These arguments cannot be squared with a basic and filial Christian spirit; rather, they prove a lack of a true, basic and filial Christian spirit. And, yes, they are both an attack and an insult, not only to the Holy Father, but more so upon Christ Himself. Also, given that you have not taken the initiative to put forth your own difficulties, but only take this opportunity to raise them, proves that your "plea" is dishonest; anyways, we do not take such nonsense seriously, and don't intend to. I deliberately say "nonsense", because that is exactly what your "plea" is, dishonest and nonsensical - not the words of a Christian speaking. But I am also refuting these false ideas - for the umpteenth time, if I may point out.

For starters, please provide me some basis for your weird, extremely weird, idea that the absence of "clergymen" renders the 1990 Conclave questionable or void. Please give me solid quotes from the Church, not intellectual garbage of half-baked weirdos masquerading as Catholic thinkers, which pretty much describes nearly the whole of the "Traditionalist movement".

Please also provide me with some basis for your weird idea that, because the Holy Father has not prostituted himself before dishonest men in order to receive the Sacrament of Holy Order, he somehow becomes illegitimate.

Please also explain what exactly you mean by an "unbiased college of cardinals", an oxymoron if I ever saw one. And also, please provide me with solid Catholic basis for your weird pretensions that because the Holy Father was elected by family and friends, he is somehow illegitimate or void. That is rather like arguing that, since your father is a voter, neither your mother nor you nor your siblings can be voters. Is that right? Try to be logical, and try not to be malicious. And, also explain to me how this weird idea squares with the Doctrine of the Church as the Mystical Body of the Triumphant Christ, making all members of the Church, members of the Mystical Body of Christ - regardless of any personal or blood relationships between them? Or are we now come to the point where we must say: "Only one member of a family can become Christian, please"?

And, lastly, if the Holy Father is "illegitimate" or his election "void", then the "plea" that he should "step down" is ridiculous: One does not "step down" from what one does not have. That makes your "plea" not only dishonest, but also arch and cute, aggravations of your sinfulness in making it.

I denounce you, not to humiliate you, but to warn you from your errors and to bring you to your senses, in order to save you. Even Paul, a subject to Peter, warned Peter when he dissembled at Antioch.

As towards Unam Sanctam, I remember this Bull quite well. My favorite quote from said Bull is as follows:

"We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church."
Now, keep in mind, Pope Boniface writes in this bull that the church must be unified in the faith, sacraments and charity of the church. I know for a fact that Mr. Bawden has not yet been ordained a priest, let alone a bishop. So how is it that he, supposed head of the church, can hold this office if he cannot even feed his flock with the body of Christ?

Your theology is bad, even pathetic. It is Catholic theology that the office of Pope devolves immediately upon the electee assenting, and is separate and distinct from his office as Bishop; this is the constant teaching of the Church, and reiterated even by Pope Pius XII of recent memory. It is superior to the office of Bishop. The office of Universal Bishop is, it is true, inseverably annexed to the Office of Pope, but it is a subordinate office, and a man is understood to repudiate Papal Office only by refusing to be consecrated Bishop, not because he is prevented by circumstances from being consecrated bishop.

As for the fact that eighteen years have passed since the election of the Holy Father without his being able as yet to procure Holy Orders, you are saying too much when you point out to this fact. By an extension of the same logic, since Christ has permitted His Church to be apparently laid waste for so many years since October 1958, we must assume that Christ has failed and let the Church fall and disintegrate and cease to be, so that His promise is made false, and if His Promise, then He too is false, for He has not been able to do what He Promised. You argue and prove too much, and this argument is from Satan, not from Christ, not from God. Repudiate these false and vile ideas, do not entertain them for even a moment.

"Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]."-Unam Sanctam.
My arguments on this subject could go on for days, but I leave you with one of my favorite scriptural verses that should sum up all of them:

Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. - John 6:54
I walk in the Faith of Abraham, believing on faith and trust in the God who can neither deceive nor be deceived, trusting in His promise of a restoration and of a vindication of that what is right and good. I leave it to God when He will do so, restoring the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and while I work what is within my power, I do not presume to order my God.

In closing, I thank you very much for your time and I hope I have answered any questions you may have had.

So, too, have I.

Kind regards,

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

This Catholic Church: H.H. Pope Michael I | Return to the Catholic Church | Pope Michael's Blog | The Pope Speaks | VaticanInExile Mailing Lists | Catholic Research Library | Pope Paul IV, 1559: Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio | Cum Ex Retained | Cum Ex Today | Campion's Brag (Coming up!)

Following this, I wrote out one last message, http://www.geocities.com/livrant/conform-2-gods-love.html "Conform To God's Love", in the hope of awakening this person to his duty, but to no avail; A.W.A. has contemned my plea and has departed into the outer darkness of heresy and schism, disdaining to reply. Well, it is his soul, and it is his right to cast it into the gutter! — Lúcio.

© Lúcio Mascarenhas. URL: http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/awa.html
PUBLISHED on the Internet: April 8, 2004; Revised March 10, 2007; February 26, 2008..


Written with the purpose of educating people in matters concerning the Catholic Resistance to the Modernist Apostasy, and based on the principles elucidated by the Church, that the truth is never afraid, and that the Church is never afraid of the Truth, and on the principles elucidated by Frs. Rumble & Carty and by Fulton Sheen in his essay, "The Art of Controversy". — Benedicamus Deus, Lúcio.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws