Against David Trosch

©Lúcio Mascarenhas. March 10, 2005.
Copyright Terms & Conditions | Home | Michaelinum.

Dear Justin Donatus,

I have at last been able to take time off to examine David Trosch's arguments, and can make a statement.

As I have said before, I am already familiar with Trosch, and have dismissed him from consideration as being unorthodox. This was primarily because of his pretension that Catholics priests may lawfully marry. Trosch pretends that priests may marry, but only to virgins, not to widows. This is contrary to Catholic doctrine and law.

Subsequent to your mail, I had visited Trosch's site once again, when I found that he pretends that circumcision continues to remain lawful and obligatory, once again contradicting Catholic doctrine:

"Christian and Jewish fathers now and have always been required to circumcise their sons. Medical evidence now supports the importance of this procedure that God has always understood. The act has additional significance in religion."

On a further examination of such of his pages as I have downloaded for examination, I can say this much with absolute certainty: I do not know if Trosch is of Jewish origins, which is what I strongly suspect, but I know that he is a Judaizer and teaches Judaization. Judaization is condemned by Catholic doctrine.

All of the above is by way of background — to demonstrate that Trosch is wholly unorthodox.

Perhaps, the worst error that Trosch teaches is this:

"A legal procedure (canonical) could and perhaps should be established to discipline and possibly replace an intractable pope when it can be clearly and publicly established that he is incompetent or is in heresy."

This is so totally repugnant to Catholic doctrine! Orthodox doctrine teaches that a pope cannot be judged by Christians, being his subordinates, but a man can be shown to have been judged and therefore to have fallen from the papacy.

Coming to the page that you referred to, on examination, it is evident that Trosch is once again totally unorthodox and in error:

"Infiltrators into the priesthood such as communists, satanists (those who accept Satan as their god to whom they offer human sacrifices. They also incorporate desecration of morally consecrated Catholic Hosts — the living Body of Christ [a legal only priest — such as a satanist — is incapable of validly consecrating bread and wine... including those ordained without accepting the full authenticity of Scripture from Genesis to the Apocalypse (Revelation) have only legal recognition. They do not have moral priesthood (true ordination). While such men do have legal authority in relation to six of the seven sacraments and in relation to civil matters, they do not have the blessing (authority) of God to consecrate the Holy Eucharist or to perform exorcisms."

"Candidates for the priesthood who do not believe in the entirety of the Word of God — the whole of Sacred Scripture — should not be considered as being morally ordainable."

"Until removed such offenders legally hold office but do not have moral authority and it is believed that offending priests (legally but not morally holding the office of priest) do not bring Jesus present in the Holy Eucharist and consequently waste the offerings of the participating congregation (priestly people)."

The distinction he makes is false and non-existent.

It is Catholic theology that a bad or immoral man can both be lawfully ordained and can lawfully consecrate, and that those who communicate at his hands receive all the graces Christ Jesus promised, if the rite is performed in the unity of the Church, and not in schism or in a sect.

It is Catholic theology that even a heretic and schismatic with valid orders can ordain and consecrate validly even though in schism, and if he uses the correct matter and form and has the correct intention; likewise, even a heretic or schismatic can be lawfully ordained or consecrated, and can confect the sacraments if he uses the correct matter and form and has the correct intention, although such a confection would be unlawful, unholy and would aggravate his sins [being an extremely grave mortal sin].

The distinction that Trosch makes between the "Chair of Peter" and the "Office of Peter" is a pure innovation without any history in the Doctrine of the Church.

According to Catholic theology, an immoral pope would still be lawful pope; on the contrary, a man who has been a heretic from prior to his purported election as pope, never lawfully attained to the Papacy.

It is the logic of every body that aliens, and even more, those with an inimical belief, cannot attain to their governmental positions, or be considered to be members in any true manner.

Let us take an analogy. Suppose that in some country, beset with invasions and insurgencies of Communists, an anti-Communist body has been set up. Suppose, however, that it is discovered that a high ranking officer in this organisation has been discovered to be a covert Communist, a plant, made plain by his words and actions, and who seeks to compromise and subvert the organization in order to enable the Communists. The rank and file would be entirely right in disowning him as a fraud, and to reject any agreement or compromise that he may make, reject these agreements as invalid, null and void and without any binding authority.

As a matter of fact, the vast majority of the members of the organization will insist that, being a Communist, that man is not even a member, and therefore entirely ineligible to being an officer and to negotiate on their behalf!

Take things closer home. Suppose we have a man who claims to be a Christian, yet nevertheless publicly denies that Christ is God or that Christ ever really existed. Such a man is a public heretic. Yet, if such a man was "elected" pope, so that he could teach and implement his heresies, the vast majority of Christians would reject him as being an alien, one who has separated himself from the Christian community, and who is, therefore, utterly incapable of attaining to any position of government or authority within the Christian community.

This is also Church Law. It is Canon Law; it is also the Law as legislated by Pope Paul IV in 1559, by way of his Apostolic Constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.

The question therefore is whether the current bunch of men, obvious malefactors out to destroy Christianity, are heretics or are merely confused, yet nevertheless, legitimate members of the Church.

The confusion is created because these men (John XXIII, Paul VI, John-Paul I & II) sometimes act as if they are staunch, orthodox Catholics, yet on far more occassions, as vicious, anti-Catholics.

But there is no REAL ground for confusion.

Pope St. Pius X had already studied the heresy of these people, and had isolated and described the pathogen. The apparent "confusion" is actually only a trick, dissembling, in order to deliberately confuse souls.

St. Pius X described them as pretending to be staunchly Catholic in one statement, and vicious heretics and anti-Catholics in another. This is the description that fits these four men and all their minions like Rahner, Kung, Boff, Schillebeecks, Ratzinger, Frings, Suenens, etc. snugly.

Therefore there is no ground whatsoever for confusion.

The Bible warns us that the enemy strives to subvert us by coming in and pretending to be of us, that they may seduce us from truth and into error. Even in this crisis, this is true.

Lefebvre and all his minions themselves confess that "John XXIII" and Company are heretics who meet all the definitions of the Church for being persons who had incurred excommunications and therefore could never have legitimately become pope. Yet nevertheless, the Lefebvrists pretend that these "popes" are nevertheless still legitimate popes!

Likewise, Michel Guerard des Lauriers too pretends that, despite all the clear and unequivocal teachings and laws of the Church, these antipopes are still legitimate popes! This teaching is put under the form of the "Papa materialiter, papa formaliter" formula.

J. Lawrence Case teaches a heresy patterned on Des Lauriers'.

Trosch, too, it is evident, is teaching the same heresy as Des Lauriers, though he puts it in a much more simplified (and nonsensical) form than Des Lauriers, Lefebvre or Case!

I hope that I have answered your query satisfactorily.

For further reading, I would suggest that you print out a copy of Pope Paul IV's Apostolic Constitution Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Pope Pius IX's Syllabus Errorum, Pope St. Pius X's pronouncements and legislations against the Modernist heresy (Lamentabili Sane, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Praestantia Scriptura, Antistitium Sacrorum, etc) and Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos.

See also my tract Repair My Church.

These documents will utterly demolish all the lies and pretensions of the Modernists, presently led by the Polish ham-actor Karol Jozef Wojtyla, and also of the Lefebvre, Des Lauriers, J. Lawrence Case and Trosch parties.

Regards,

Lúcio
N.B.: See also these pages

And many more pages!

From: "Donatus Justin"
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 17:29:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Who has the right or authority to invalidate John Paul II's election as Pope?

Mr Lúcio Mascarenhas,

I refer to Fr. David Trosch's presentation http://www.trosch.org/the/papal-validity.html and the election of Mr David Bawden as Pope Michael I, your site http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/michaeline.html.

I am left confused as to whom shall I regard as the true Pope. I am a Catholic and find it very difficult to study both presentation and make the decision due to lack of proper basic understanding and knowledge. (I am still catching up but at a slower pace). May I suggest that a kind of reply (objection?) be prepared against Fr. Trosch's presentation. Thank you for your help.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Donatus Justin.
Sabah, Malaysia.