Having Found The Pope...
© Prakash John Mascarenhas. 1st December 2002.
What Next?
I am a Catholic, and I take Catholicism deadly seriously. Therefore, I could not accept the deliberate anarchy and heresy inaugerated by Roncalli from November 1958 onward and institutionalized by 'Vatican II' in 1962-5, and still honestly call myself Catholic. Therefore, I left, having put to the test and having found the truth in the Sede-Vacantist proposition. This was on 8th September 1993. However, what became immediately obvious was that Sede-Vacantism was incomplete, and that, Catholicism demands immediate progress from the Sede-Vacantist proposition to the 'Conclavist' position, failing which, one lapses into heresy and schism.
At this time, I was still not exposed to what I now know to be called usually 'Conclavism' - which position is largely attributed to Mr. Kenneth J. Mock as its ideological pioneer, and even to this day, I have not been able to either find this man or any of his own writings and pronouncements, etc. However, I had developed the same reasoning independently, though subsequently, and I called this 'Orthopapism.' Now, Conclavism or Orthopapism can be defined as the proposition that it is not enough to recognize that the papal claimants Roncalli, Montini, Luciani and Voltiva (Wojtyla) were heretics prior to their purported elections, and that therefore, according to Church law, could not and did not really become Popes, but that they commenced a great Schism and Apostacy from the Church; one must proceed to the further position that the vacancy can and must necessarily and urgently be supplied, and to consider the possibility that this has already happened, although one may not be aware of this fact.
And so, to publicize this viewpoint, I wrote out a tract called Repair My Church sometime in 1995. One of the response it drew was one from a Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher, who said that he had obtained it from a Dr. Charles Mendoza, and he wrote forbidding me from making any such effort, as he was already engaged in such an effort himself. In the first quarter of 1999, I discovered the Internet, and I then began to search for the rumoured 'Pope Linus II.' Instead of him, I found the 'Pope Michael I' and the 'Pope Pius XII' (the same old Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher, again!)
Now, because I had been obsessed with Linus II, having heard of him sometime in 1995 or so, I ignored these others. However, to keep them informed, as a matter of courtesy, I sent them copies of emails I exchanged with the Linus II group. Thus it was that Pope Michael I sent me his pre-papal book, Will The Catholic Church Survive The Twentieth Century? sometime in late 2000. However, while evaluating the book, out of a genuine fear of being sucked into a cult, (which was - and is - still a general, not specific or directed fear), I sought the guidance of certain persons in order to avoid pitfalls. However, it is now evident to me today, that under the influence of some of these, I came to be, and negligently allowed myself to be blindsided and biased against the book, so that I did not sincerely evaluate it, but set out to do, what is called colloquially, a hatchet job on the book and on Pope Michael's claim to be the Pope.
This fact became evident to me when, in this year (2002) Teresa Benns wrote objecting to my evaluation and sought a re-evaluation. I, therefore, dug out the book and set out to re-read it.
Earlier, I had, in elucidating, developing and applying the teachings of the Catholic Church, and its pronouncements, in general colour, had occasion several times to defend the procedures attempted by the Pope Michael, Linus II and Pius XIII claim-groups, particularly against the contentions of Robert Hess. My only argument against these groups was my contention that these attempts were defective for various reasons. My rejection of the Pope Michael claim was based on my evaluation, The Sad-Misadventures of Benns & Bawden.
However, in re-reading the book, I found that I had, as previously stated, allowed myself to misread it, and misevaluate Pope Michael's claim. In fact, after having finished reading the book for the second time, I found that there was and is no real ground whatsoever to object to or reject the purported election of David Bawden as Pope Michael; from the development and application of the principles of the Catholic Church, then, it became obvious that the Papal Vacancy had been ended in 1990, when David Bawden was elected Pope, as Michael the First, in an extra-ordinary, lay election. (See my second, and final re-evaluation, here).
I could have had arrived, more happily, at this conclusion in 2000, if I had not sadly and culpably permitted myself to be overawed and blindsided. However, be that as it may, I could not, in faithfulness, do anything else but acknowledge this error and correct it, as far as I can, and also apply myself to and submit to Pope Michael.
I do not know Pope Michael, formerly David Bawden, personally. I am not personally acquainted with him. In a way, it can be said that I do not know him from Adam. However, in pursuance of my obligations towards Christ, I have the obligation to seek out, to submit to and acknowledge and obey His Vicar, the successor of St. Peter. It scarcely matters to me personally whether this person is David Bawden, Victor von Pentz or Lucian Pulvermacher, or for that matter, any one else; it does not matter what race he belongs to, whether he is a Hebrew or an Armenian or a Negro or an Inca or a Japanese, or whatever; what matters is that the person is a Catholic, was one at his election, had no impediments, and has been validly and legitimately elected. Personalities do not, cannot enter here.
I therefore, wish to state to one and all these facts and that I recognize and acknowledge Pope Michael as the true Pope, the Vicar of Christ, and that he has been so since his election sometime in 1990.
It would not be honest of me to cover up the slight panic that I feel, now that I have found the Pope: It is one thing to seek, and another to find. Yet, I am determined to follow this through, not because of any personal feelings, but because, for my salvation, I need to follow and obey our Lord entirely, and that involves necessarily submitting to the Pope.
I am confident of my principles, which are of the Church and not of my own creation. Since I have turned away from the world and taken to our Lord, my motto has been to conform myself to Him, and though at times, and very frequently too, I must admit, I have failed and sinned, nevertheless it remains my guiding principle. Therefore, I will follow His Vicar fearlessly, trusting not in mere men but in the omnipotent and merciful God of Abraham, verily Christ Jesus.
What comes next? How do we proceed further to the necessary works that still lie ahead of us? These are the legitimate questions that now I must answer, and in considering them, I must sincerely confess that I do not know neither the specific means nor the specific ways.
I had occasion to write an article about a year back, wherein I had set out the necessary Agenda, as I see it, for the Church: Electing the Pope, as the immediate end; Work to secure the evacuation and Restoration of Rome and the Vatican as final ends. Now that the question of the Pope is settled, as far as I am concerned, the only works left are to re-start the great missionary endeavour, for the salvation of souls, and also the herculean task of recovering Rome.
However, the nitty-gritty of the exact how should be left to time, opportunity, our means and the final judgement of the legitimate Roman Pontiff, at this time, Pope Michael the First.