Bawdenite Difficulties

©Lucio Mascarenhas. 14th February 2004.
Orthopapism II/Michaelinum | Index of Articles

From: Helen Kalianemm
To: Lucio Mascarenhas
Sub.: [Saint Thomas Aquinas Room] New Catholic Encyclopedia
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 13:42:21 -0500

Prakash Joćo Maskaren

Dear Sir:

Are you the same person that wrote the letter below to the RCC chat line and who also had the website on Pope Michael?

I have some new information I have researched on this matter. Please contact me. I have some questions regarding this jurisdiction matter.

Thank you.

Helen Kalianemm

Prax Maskaren wrote:

Dear Friends,

I am aware of a New Catholic Encyclopedia in existence already. I have seen the entire set in the Diocesan Pastoral Center of Bombay diocese, and it seems that it was published 1967...

I also did a google search, and this is what I found: http://dx.doi.org/10.1223/0787640042

Prax Maskaren, Bombay

From: Lucio Mascarenhas
To: Helen Kalianemm
Cc.: His Holiness Pope Michael, Lucio Mascarenhas
Sub.: [Saint Thomas Aquinas Room] New Catholic Encyclopedia
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:34:45 +0000 (GMT)

[email protected] wrote:

Prakash Joćo Maskaren

Dear Sir:

Are you the same person that wrote the letter below to the RCC chat line
Yes

and who also had the website on Pope Michael?
Not HAD, has.

Actually, even that is not exact. I do not have a "website" on Pope Michael, I merely have pages on him.


I have some new information I have researched on this matter. Please contact me. I have some questions regarding this jurisdiction matter.
Ok.

Thank you.

Helen Kalianemm
Lucio Joao Mascarenhas (formerly "Prakash")
From: Helen Kalianemm
To: Lucio Mascarenhas
Sub.: Bawden & Benns
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:38:39 -0500

Dear Mr. Mascarenhas,

On Page 309 of Bawden's book you will find his list of dissertations, plus the fifth one located on page iv. Why he doesn't include all of them in one location is another question.

The renowned theologians of our time, Omlor, Lane, Fr. Barbara, Fr. Brey, Fr. Sanborn, Fr. Cekada, Dr. Coomaraswamy, Fr. Stepanich, Hutton Gibson, and many others, have been silent on the Bawden case. Except for Fr. Barbara, who died in 2000, they are all living. But their silence does not bespeak complicity, however. It shouts in opposition to the events perpetrated by Bawden and Benns, and shouts loudly that Benns and Bawden are not worth the trouble or time, so Benns and Bawden are completely ignored, whereas any other deceiver on every front has been written about and exposed by these scholarly men, and exposed in depth. It can be shown that their numerous articles and publications have not overlooked every and all serious deceptions by those who would invent and attempt to pervert Catholic Doctrine. But not for Bawden. Not for him.

I believe that you had it right the first time on David Bawden and Teresa Benns. It was your sensus fidelium that told you your first instinct was correct regarding their "electoral college."

The dissertations that Benns and Bawden used to promote the election, and the many books that are listed is impressive, yet anything can be pulled out from books and as you know, dissertations and even references can be detoothed and shown for what they really are. Dissertations are merely that. Talk. Theories. Uncanonical theories at most. And in the least? They may be masterfully hinged together, but dissertations are just opinions and unless they are fully examined by Theologians and Doctors, Popes and Councils, the dissertations fall into the dust bin of time.

I have focused on the dissertations because their time element exceeded the codification of the Canons in 1917, and thought possibly that Bawden and Benns had really discovered a hidden potential for their election.

Since there is no heierarcichal church at present which holds the jurisdiction from Christ, such theories will never be added to Church law, and even upon the chance that they could be correct we couldn't act upon them anyway. Parsons, one of the doctoral candidates, lists a ton of references in his Bibliography going as far back as 1672, written in German, French and Latin and still the Church has not made what might be possibly contained there, such as a possible jurisdictional alternative cure as a part of her Canons of 1917.

Bawden and Benns sought to find a way to "slip in between the cracks" or to find the back door, or whatever, because THEY decided that the "time was up" and they weren't going to wait anymore! But the Canons prove that they have not received their jurisdiction from authority, the key item which still lies on the discussion table unproven.

It is not for us to have to prove against them, a thing which they demand. The laity never had the option to claim jurisdiction, according to Parsons, one of their references, and according to Champoux, another dissertation writer, he agrees that laity jurisdiction can only come from proper authority.

This blows the Benns/Bawden papacy out of the water, and it their references that were used to show it. Naturally, they do not quote exactly where in any of their references that they can claim authority, for it is possible that they were unable to read French, German or Latin to see if the references were approved sources. They just go on listing them, just the same as Parsons, Champoux MacKenzie, Miaskiewicz, and Cox did. Fr. Cox declares after his study that such laity jurisdiction needs "additional study...in regard to jurisdiction and the potestas clavium" before the question can be resolved with certainty." Again, he admits it is NOT resolved, and this dissertation is dated 1959. Champoux, although his motive may have been suspicious in 1939, [the Teilhardian Modernist monsters were already lurking in the Jesuit seminaries, and Pius IX knew it well] yet it still does not go the distance in saying that when proper authority has vanished, then the laity may step in. No, he doesn't say that.

But an honest pair of papacy seekers would have proudly displayed the words of Canon Law and dissertation alike where it shows that they not only HAVE permission, but that someone MUST apply the jurisdiction of the laity since it existed in Canon Law already.

Often it is what is "not being said" that is far more important that what the eye thinks it sees or the ear thinks it hears. In the case of Benns and Bawden the pen in the hand is quicker than the eye. And they knew that few people would go after them by checking the dissertations. Indeed, I was refused the dissertations on four occasions, and finally received the last one, or which there are only four copies in the whole regional WORLDCAT system. The one finally sent was crumbling in my hands and, by all appearances, could not have been opened more than once, by Fr. Roger Huss, ofm, signed by him, and then for 65 years as it appears untouched.

The Cox dissertation arrived in 1960 in a public University, although copies of all of them exist in Washington at the Catholic University to be sure. But they do not lend them!

Parsons' dissertation concerns itself with the Gratian Decretals. Of course, we know that Gratian's opinions were opinions, and did not survive in the main when the Canon Law of 1917 was finalized. Gratian is accused of "departing from the vague statement of "electio per clerum et populum" and declares: "Electio clericorum est, petitio plebis. This is proved by canon 1, a text of Pope Leo I: "Nulla ratio sinit, ut inter episcopos habeatur, qui nec a clericis sunt electi, nec a plebibus expetiti..." The action of the people is further interpreted by canon 2, the dictum of Pope Celestine I: 'Docendus est populus, non sequendus....' (The teaching goes to the people, not from them, ed.) The clergy elect and the people request." That is Gratian's announced thesis, but he does not prove it. By the end of Dictinction LXIII, a really important 'petitio plebis' has been eliminated, and in its essence, election is restricted to definite clerics, the cathedral canons. Gratian is aware that the question is not as simple as might appear from Distinction LXII. Therefore, in Distinction LXIII he faces the tangled maze of conflicting laws, devoting 36 canons to a clarification of his position." p. 47, Canonical Elections: an historical synopsis and commentary, Rev. Anscar Parsons, O. M. Cap., J. C. L. 1889-1939.

This goes on at length, and the hope is that you can decifer the Latin and get the Parsons dissertation for yourself and tell me what it is. Parsons is reporting Gratian correctly, for Gratian can now be read online, in English, but the price is $65.00. It may be worth it.

Miaskiewicz states on page 229 of his dissertation that "the Code is very specific in stating that the pastor cannot validly grant the faculty...to just anyone... Nor can he extend his jurisdiction beyond the limits within which it is restricted by law. One is to suppose that granting of any faculty, at the diocesen level, and more, at the higher ecclesial levels, permission to facilitate any laity or anyone else has to follow the same rules.

As for Kearney, his dissertation is on thePrinciples of Delegation, which covers what the Canons allow [not what they forbid]. As I turn to his page on Ordinary Jurisdiction, the laity is not mentioned. Indeed, the first delegation of power is that of Moses, acting upon the advice of Jethro, and for the record, Moses possessed authority from God, therefore he could designate those under him to possess part of his authority. (Exodus, XVIII) But this does not mean laity takes it to themselves. In fact it reinforces the Canons, that jurisdiction is delegated by those only already possessing it.

You will find reference to Bawden's dissertations on page 309. Again, what is missing is that he advertises the dissertations by title, but do we hear from Bawden what reason he had to consult the theories on potential law?

Let me know if you need more references on this or if you will remain in the opinion that a layman can claim jurisdiction from nowhere. He has no Doctor of the Church to support him. There is no tradition, in fact these scholars point away from laity taking ecclesial jurisdiction without permission, nor can they be given such authority as there is no precedence.

If it only took me, a mere academic, only a few pages of looking to see that these sources in themselves are not the foundation for Bawden's actions, think what I might learn when much time, years, is spent, as Benns and Bawden did, before they finalized their plot?

Their electors, sadly, wanted a leader, too. They were tired of that lost feeling, that unled, unofficial condition that we all must endure until Our Lord chooses the time and place to end our plight. Yet, it is not the time. Many signs are fulfilled, but not all of them. It, we must remember, is primarly God's Will that His Church suffer under the Gates of Earth. He never said that Earth would not prevail against His Church. In fact He indicated quite the opposite: that the Earth WOULD PREVAIL, BUT NOT THE GATES OF HELL! Again, we have to reread just what was said and what was not said. The Holy Ghost tells us that "think ye, He, when He returneth, will He find the Faith?" St. John is saying that Christ WON'T, or barely find anyone holding the Faith. Hardly anyone. These are secret clues, that only the Faithful can decipher, and St. John further warned us that we would not understand these times "until they were occurring."

The poor followers of Benns and Bawden merely fall into one of the many traps and snares that Satan puts in front of us, seeking to dissuade us from believing that Christ has eclipsed His Church and that we must will it, too, and wait, and wait faithfully until He decides "time is up."

I have done this very hurriedly, because I think it is urgent for your sake. No one else I know has examined the dissertations and many references, for I have heard of no one quoting them in support of Bawden. If may be, that Bawden and Benns have not yet found it. According to Patrick Henry's two-tape rebuttal, St. Thomas stands against the methods Bawden used. You might want to listen to those tapes. I have transcribed them. David is unlikely to point these tapes out to his followers.

Please keep in touch, and let us see if we can help each other in this matter in in the real job, holding the Faith. If you have found a Canon that supports Bawden then I would surely like to know its number and its source. Until then,

Yours truly,

Helen

P.S. [I have removed your formatted margins because they always take up too much screen space. If you will put your settings at "normal" rather than "formatted" the margins will disappear. Thanks.]
From: His Holiness Pope Michael
To: Lucio Mascarenhas
Sub.: Re: Fwd: prakashjm45: Bawden & Benns - For Info
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 07:52:48 -0600

Dear Lucio,

I have not reproduced the whole message and will comment in more detail later. Have you forwarded this to Teresa? She may know Helen. I do have a few comments now...


At 11:00 AM 2/14/2004, you wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
To: Lucio Mascarenhas
Subject: Bawden & Benns

Dear Mr. Mascarenhas,

On Page 309 of Bawden's book you will find his list of dissertations, plus the fifth one located on page iv. Why he doesn't include all of them in one location is another question.

The renowned theologians of our time, Omlor, Lane, Fr. Barbara, Fr. Brey, Fr. Sanborn, Fr. Cekada, Dr. Coomaraswamy, Fr. Stepanich, Hutton Gibson, and many others, have been silent on the Bawden case.
Omlor has been around for decades, but I do not know much about him.

Lane is a Johnny come lately, a disciple of John Daly. Was once with Briton's Catholic Library (which Hutton Gibson aptly called "Briton's UnCatholic Library"). I have met John Daly, but was not impressed with his or his former employer, Martin Gwynne's, theological reasonings. Lane probably has said nothing, knowing that Daly and Gwynne wrote a long pamphlet against my election. One of their calumnies is that it was a Bawden for Pope effort. They cite many quotes and put the words in my mouth. In all but one case, Teresa wrote the section in question.

Fr. Barbara has also been around.

I wouldn't call Fr. Brey a "renowned theologian", as he has written little. Also I think he was once with Martin Gwynne.

Sanborn and Cekada were both at Armada, running it, when I was there. I have no respect for their theological reasoning.

I have heard of Fr. Stephanich.

Hutton Gibson certainly did write about my election.

I have one simple question for all of these "theologians": What is the final solution to the current problem? Give complete details and how it complies totally with the doctrines of the Catholic Faith?


Yours truly,

Helen
Helen who? I remember either Teresa or I dealing with a Helen.

Pope Michael

See my reply: Reply To Helen Kalianemm

©Lucio Mascarenhas. 14th February 2004.
Orthopapism II/Michaelinum | Index of Articles
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1