Hans Lorenz, Pope Michael and l'affair 'Pius XIV'
©Prakash J. Mascarenhas, Bombay, India. This page is Copyright.
Dear Friends,
I draw your attention to the following exchange. Originally, I had not intended to put this in the public domain. However, considering the seriousness of both the charges of fraud levied against H.H. Pope Michael I, and not (yet) either substantiated or withdrawn, and also the continuing seriousness of the 'Pius XIV' fraud, I believe that it is necessary to put this in the public domain.
I hereby call on Mr. Hans Lorenz to either substantiate his charges of fraud levied against Mr. David Bawden or withdraw them.
If Mr. Lorenz or anyone else has contrary and expository information on the claims of certain persons where those claims are being put up to the public for acceptance and is claimed to have a bearing on their salvation, then it is their duty to put up that information up in the public domain so that those souls who are liable to be seduced by the particular error should be warned against them. This is Charity. This is also the Law.
I therefore call on Mr. Lorenz to prove his charges.
From: Hans F. Lorenz
To: Prakash J. Mascarenhas
CC: Gordon Bateman
Subject: Pope Michael I
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:41:12 -0700
My Dear Brothers in Christ;
Pax et Bonum,
Pax Dominus sit semper vobiscum
I think that the following information might interest you:
When David Bawden called for a Papal Conclave in 1990, he was contacted by some people from out of town, namely (a) a man and wife, (b) their teenaged son and daughter, (c) another couple, (d) a single man, who wanted to run in the Conclave and lived near the above people, for a total of seven people. As I stated these people lived out of the town from St. Mary's, Kansas, but they arrived the day before the supposed conclave, they were staying in a motel just outside St. Mary's, and phoned David, at his uncle's place, so he told them that the conclave would be at 10:00 am the next morning.
In town lived (a) David (b) his parents (c) his uncle (d) Ms. Teresa Benns (e) Mr. Hunt, for a total of six people. To the best of my knowledge David, did not mention the people from out of town, when he held his conclave at 9:00 am, because he feared that Ms. Benns and Mr. Hunt might vote with the people from out of town, and then he would not be "POPE," because the out-of-town candidate would have had eight votes, while he would only have had three votes, since the candidates cannot vote for themselves.
David was asked to leave
and he never received any Ordinations.
He stated to me in an email
(Question 1) By whom were you Ordained?
(Answer) I have not yet been Ordained
(Question 2) By whom were you Consecrated?
(Answer) I have not yet been Consecrated.
Both Doctrines have been clarified infallibly by Pope Pius XII, in 1954, and by previous Popes, as being mandatory for a person to be installed as Pope. These were Doctrines since the seventh century, and when David said, "They were brought in by Vatican II," then he does not know much about the Doctrines of the Catholic Church.
So I shall leave it to you Prakash, if he is a valid "Pope" or not, but to me it was a case of being shoed into the post, since he says that he was elected by 66% plus one, which is true because 4 out of 6 equals 66% and one more makes 66% plus one, but the fact that he called the conclave one hour earlier, to make sure that the out-of-town people were not at the conclave, since he knew that he would loose if they came to the conclave. He has mentioned that people came from out of town, but they were too late for the conclave, so their votes did not get counted.
I did not expect an inquisitive person like you could be duped by someone like David Bawden, or did he just conveniently leave out a couple of facts? Did he also mention that he was only 30 years old, when he was "elected as Pope," since he was born in 1960, and the election was in 1990?
Did David tell you that two of his electors were Ms. Teresa Benns, and his mother: Well women have never been permitted to vote in Papal conclaves, so actually there were only three people who were legally permitted to vote, namely his father, his uncle, and Mr. Hunt.
Your brother in Jesus & St. Francis
+Hans F. Lorenz, LBSF, OFM(min)
Rt. Rev. Dr. Hans F. Lorenz, LBSF, OFM(min), STD, ThD, DD, CD, Bishop of the Catholic Church.
We adhere to Traditional Roman Catholic Doctrines of Pre-Vatican II. We refuse to accept the Novus Ordo Services or sacraments. We do not accept Vatican II Popes, or their teachings. We are sedevacantist.
From: Prakash J. Mascarenhas
Subject: Michael I & the Zhongs
To: Hans F. Lorenz
CC: Gordon Bateman
Dear Sir,
I thank you for your letter on David Bawden and his papal claim.
However, the purpose of the letter has entirely escaped me. Most importantly, I do not understand why, when it is I who have exposed your activities, you are targeting Mr. Bawden for revenge - It seems to me that you are striking out at Mr. Bawden in an attempt to hurt me. The logic of that escapes me.
I am not in a position to investigate the claim that you make against Bawden that he conspired to commit fraud and that his claim rests on the success of this fraud.
You will need to furnish some real evidence of this wrongdoing.
Mr. Bawden - as much as Mrs. Stanfill-Benns - had made me aware of the identity of the participants in the Conclave that resulted in his election: Mr. & Mrs. Bawden (David's parents), Mr. & Mrs. Benns, Mr. & Mrs. Hunt (I believe, though my memory is not certain) and lastly, Mr. David Bawden himself.
That Mr. Bawden was thrown out of the number of places was also informed me; and I agree that that is no evidence of deficiency on Mr. Bawden's part. Moreover, until you - or any opponent of Mr. Bawden can prove his deficiencies or other causes - citing these expulsions is irrelevant.
Coming to his lack of orders: I can only say that I am extremely astonished by the charge and claim that you make, and which only demonstrate a lamentable ignorance of Catholicism.
You begin to sound like that fantastic Mr. James Hess (yup, yet another 'bishop' with questionable orders!) who goes off on his weird path that the Papacy is a sacrament and the failure to treat it as such in recent times is what has caused God's wrath and the recent crisis since 1958 or so.
You must know that when a man is elected pope he must consent to be ordained a priest, if not already one, and a bishop, if not already one, and only after that is he installed. In the case of Mr. Bawden, there is no possibility of his receiving ordination or consecration just yet, and his reasons are just and reasonable. Therefore there is no ground for accusing him.
Ordination and Consecration are not 'Doctrines': The confusion is astonishing.
And that confusion is made worse when you allege that Mr. Bawden has claimed that the necessity of being ordained and consecrated was only brought in by Vat2. I am dead certain that Mr. Bawden will have made no such statement.
It is Catholic Doctrine that upon election, the electee receives full power to govern the Church. However, if he refuses to be supplied orders without just reasons, then it would be understood that he has tacitly resigned or abdicated the papacy.
Mr. Bawden alleges as his just reason that it is illegitimate to solicit and receive orders from heretics and schismatics; that even the Thuc lineage gives a bad, suspicious odour.
I find myself unable to disagree with Mr. Bawden.
I understand that it is Mr. Bawden's position that he will be willing to be ordained and consecrated by a man possessing indubitably valid orders even if received from schismatics or heretics if that person will first abjure his errors and submit to him (Mr. Bawden, as pope) and be absolved for the crime of receiving orders irregularly. I find that I am unable to disagree with that attitude.
I ask you: What is the relevance of Mr. Bawden being 30 years old or of whatever age, at the time of his election? What are you trying to imply?
I suggest that you come out and make a straightforward statement on this, if you wish, and leave off unnecessary and meaningless innuendo.
As far as I am aware, there is no restriction as to age, except that the candidate be a major and that he not be a recent convert. And as far as I can remember my Church history, many were created cardinals purely because they were the nephews of popes, and even when they were but minors! And, so it was also that some very young men, in their adolescence, were foisted upon the papacy.
Mind you, I am talking of men who were and are still accepted as having been legitimate popes.
One - Pope Benedict IX - particularly rises to mind. This was the one who was forced upon the Church by his powerful family at either the age of twelve or twenty, according to various accounts, and who simonically sold the papacy to his godfather, John Gratianus, later the Pope Gregory VI in order to be dispensed from celibacy and monetarily compensated so that he could marry a girl he had become enamoured off, etc.
Mr. Bawden at thirty, then, by contrast, poses no problems that I can comprehend.
And what about the participation of Mrs. Stanfill-Benns and of Mrs. Bawden, the mother of Mr. David Bawden in the election? What is the basis of your contention that women are not allowed to vote in a papal conclave?
You must be aware that this Conclave was not a normal Conclave of Cardinals or of the Canons of St. John on the Lateran, the other Cathedral of the Papacy, but merely and solely a lay extra-ordinary election. In the light of that, I ask what is the basis of your objection? I hope that you are not trying to prove yourself a misogynist or a Male Chauvinist, or that you are trying to imply that women are second-class, subhuman. That would be unfortunate, though only for you.
It seems hypocritical that you should care two hoots for the laws of the Church prohibiting commerce with heretics, such as soliciting and receiving orders from Old Catholics, and then take scandal at the participation of Catholic women in good standing of the Church in an extra-ordinary lay election to supply the pope. That smacks of Pharisee-ism.
Let me tell you something as to background: I live in Bombay, India. And because the economy here is not the same as in the West, I am not free to wander the world at my leisure. Therefore I am compelled to investigate what interests me from afar.
Now the Internet is a great leveller and source of information. I admit, of course, its inadequacies.
When I set out to investigate Mr. Bawden, I searched the net for contrary information. However, I have found nothing. That remains so even today.
It is the duty of any person who opposes Mr. Bawden or any other person, group or cause, to put the information exposing the errors in the public domain so that souls may find it and be on their guard.
I have concluded on the claims of Mr. Bawden to be the legitimate pope on the basis of available information. Now, it may be true that, like Mr. Lucian Pulvermacher, Mr. Bawden may be exposed at a future date to be a fraud, for one reason or the other. I believe that possibility to be very improbable.
However, even if this is so, so that I am crediting Mr. Bawden to be the legitimate pope when in fact he is ineligible and thus not at all, I am still acting in good faith, and therefore am not blameworthy or culpable before God. I would become blameworthy when these facts are brought to my attention and I culpably or negligently refused or failed to investigate and verify them.
In sum, I think that I can say confidently enough that this unwarranted attack upon Mr. Bawden does not and will not do you credit, but will only show you up in a bad light.
But let us leave Mr. Bawden and your difficulties with him aside and concentrate on the �Pius XIV� affair.
I have written to you once previously in the recent past since I learnt of your involvement in the 'Pius XIV' affair, but aside from an insulting and presumptuous letter from a man who claimed to be both your nephew and a Jesuit missionary, until now I have received no response.
In the meantime, I had planned to write a second time to you a letter addressed to Robert Chung, Wen Cheng, and yourself, but put it off on advice because of the trauma that Robert was undergoing. See here: Come Clean - II
The matter that I had raised in my first letter still stands.
It is a fact that is very evident that this Pius XIV thing is a fairy tale and nothing more than a fairy tale.
Someone who claimed to be Wen Cardinal Cheng, Papal Secretary to a Pope Pius XIV who had been a Fr. Robert Zhong, S.J, first introduced this fairy tale to Sedevacantist Unity. We were also informed that despite twenty years of study, Zhong and Company had still not been able to determine finally that Karol Wojtyla and his predecessor Modernist heresiarchs were not legitimate pontiffs.
I find that that is good and urgent reason not to even consider any kind of conclave and election of another papal claimant.
Then again it is astounding that any bunch of laymen or priests and bishops in any one particular country (and that one an integral part of the 'Free World') should presumptuously delude themselves that they are the only surviving Catholics in all the world and acting on that basis proceed to elect a papal claimant without involving other Catholics in other parts of the world.
There were and are too many other inconsistencies and fallacies in the Pius XIV claim as first put forward by Cheng.
Additionally, despite the disavowal of the Walnut page by Chung, the evidence strongly indicates that this (Walnut) page was not put up by an enemy but by the inventors of the Pius XIV fairytale themselves, as an integral part of the fairytale itself.
The evidence points clearly and unmistakably that there never existed any such person as Pius XIV, whether Robert Zhong, Robert Borgia, Joseph Zhong, etc., and that this was just a romance, a fantasy. Unfortunately, however, the inventor(s) of this fairy tale do not seem to be able to keep reality and private fantasy apart.
It is evident also that this should have been evident to you, and that you could not have escaped this fact when you got or allowed yourself to become involved.
Long before all of this, you had taken the initiative of writing me a letter and in that made many wrong statements. I had sought clarifications but you choose to ignore my request, so that I was forced to confirm my suspicion that you are an Old Catholic.
Let me be precise: I have no problem as such with Catholics soliciting the sacraments from Old Catholics or Duarte Costaites, etc., but I object to persons who accept and follow these foreign ideologies calling themselves Catholic. (I follow Church teaching on this point, whatever it says in specifics).
The way you wrote it evident that you not only took sacraments but that you also imbibed and internalised the Old Catholic ideology, even while you continued to call yourself a Catholic.
Today you have put yourself in a very precarious position. By allowing yourself to become a part of and party to the fraud that is the Pius XIV claim and by joining together with others to aggravate and further transform it so that it can gain the assent of souls, you make yourself liable to investigation and to be exposed. You must be aware of the damage that an expose would do you: You would be utterly demolished as to credibility and would not be able to show your face anywhere.
This Pius XIV thing is becoming like another Ron Hubbard and Scientology. Only, with Hubbard, at least he did not commence his new religion as a fantasy but as a fiction story. That makes it just that little better than this Pius XIV fantasy.
Therefore, I request and even implore you, as I do Robert Chung and Wen Cheng, to stop this charade, and to honestly and sincerely come clean and tell the truth about the Pius XIV affair.
This is for your own good. The consequences of not doing so will be only upon the three of you and any other accomplices that you may have in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Prax Maskaren
P.S. May I enquire as to the exact relationship and connexion between you and Mr. David A. Katcher of Pelham Manor, New York? I am intrigued.
Notes, added to original letter:
Prax Maskaren
Because like other bishops, the Pope is first of all the Bishop of Rome, if a man elected is not a bishop then he has always needed to be consecrated bishop, and this was from the very beginning, not merely from the 7th century!
That is why, when Bishop Oliver Oravec, who was consecrated bishop by the Thuc bishop Robert McKenna, objected to my addressing as Bishop, Thom Sebastian, who derives his orders from Duarte Costa, the Brazilian bishop who abandoned the Church to found schismatic sects - the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil, the Mexican National Catholic Church, etc., I took no notice, for, from my viewpoint, Oravec's lineage is not more pristine or immaculate than Sebastian's.
In the like manner, I am willing to grant that Francis Shukhardt might (or might not) have validly received Episcopal Orders from the "Old Catholic" bishop Brown.
My attitude towards all these clandestine consecrations is the same: I will grant the possibility that the orders are legitimate, but it seems to be extremely doubtful. And so, while I will address the recipients of these orders as Bishops, I am far from submitting myself to them or accepting services from them or from priests ordained by them.
I understand that the usual Catholic Church attitude towards irregularly ordained bishops is to receive them back as mere laymen, if they will return to the Church. However, as with the Uniates, the Church has sometimes acted to regularise such bishops. Therefore, this is entirely upto the Pope to decide. The criteria, I believe, is the credibility or the lack thereof, of the orders received. I believe that His Holiness Pope Michael accepts tentatively the validity of most bishops vagantes of the Thuc lineage; on the contrary, the Church's attitude towards "Old Catholic" orders is one of extreme doubt.
From: Hans F. Lorenz
To: [email protected], [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Subject: Prakash
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 06:09:48 -0700
My Dear Brethren in Christ,
Pax et Bonum, Pax Dominus sit semper vobiscum
I have found something very interesting, to all of us. on the time-date line at the top of an email, after the time sent, you have -0100 or -0200 or +0100 or +0400, which tells how far west or east of Greenwich the sender was. Minus sign signifies west and plus is east.
Well your emails, from western Australia, shows +0800 hours, meaning eight time zones east of Greenwich, and my emails always show -0700 meaning seven time zones west of Greenwich, also Australian emails show the next day on date line.
Prakash's emails show +0100 meaning that he lives in central or eastern Europe, not India, because India should be +0600 or +0700, so by his email time stamp he states that he lives in Europe, +0100 or one time zone east of Greenwich. I hope this will be of some interest to you, also "Prax Makaren" is a Slovak name, but I am not sure about "Prakash", I think that name is of Ottoman Turk origin. So he is not telling the truth, about his place of residence.
Your brother in Jesus & St. Francis
+Hans F. Lorenz, LBSF, OFM(min),
Rt. Rev. Dr. Hans F. Lorenz, LBSF, OFM(min), STD, ThD, DD, CD, A Bishop of Pope Pius XIV, RIP
We adhere to Traditional Roman Catholic Doctrines of Pre-Vatican II. We refuse to accept the Novus Ordo Services or sacraments. We do not accept Vatican II Popes, or their teachings. We are sedevacantist.
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:16:39 +0100 (BST)
From: "Prax Maskaren"
Subject: On notice
To: "Hans F. Lorenz"
CC: [email protected], "Gordon Bateman"
Dear Sir,
I await your clarifications to your last post where you brought up the charge that Mr. David Bawden committed fraud in order to secure his election in the scheduled conclave from which he derives his claim to the papacy.
You have the obligation to substantiate the charge or to withdraw it.
I give you in charity 24 hours time to do either failing which I will put this matter in the public domain.
Up till now I have not brought this thing to the attention of Mr. Bawden. But if by tommorrow evening I do not receive a satisfactory response either way, I shall consider myself free to do so and to also put up this exchange in the public domain.
Prax Maskaren
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:00:47 +0100 (BST)
From: "Prax Maskaren" <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: On notice
To: "Pope Michael" <[email protected]>, "Teresa Benns" <[email protected]>, "Hans Lorenz" <[email protected]>, "Heather Mildenhall" <[email protected]>, "Gordon Bateman" <[email protected]>
To,
Mr. Hans Lorenz,
The twenty four hours notice period expiring, I am hereby forwarding this exchange to H.H. Pope Michael and to Mrs. Benns for their consideration.
Please note that it was your duty to have clarified this matter with those whom your account of the facts impugn before you began to give it credence and to circulate it.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Prax Maskaren
;-) The Turkoslovakian from Bukovina, er, Skania, er, Galicia!