Zhongism: "Chinese Bishops Elect Pope Pius XIV"
© Prax Maskaren. 23rd April 2003.
My attention has been drawn to this interesting page: http://claimants.homestead.com/sfn041903.html hosted by Robert Hess, publisher of the St. Francis Newsletter, on his Papal Claimants site. This article is in response.
All these days, I was seeking for the page which had been provided on Robert Hess' site, at http://claimants.homestead.com/Pius_XIV_press_release.html. However, this page had been deleted, there being a specific notice put up by Hess that the pages were pulled off on request, and later another that they were pulled off because of harrasment by misusing the email addresses on those pages.
Soon after I learnt that despite my expose of the inconsistencies, etc., of the 'Pius XIV' claim, Conclavists continued to credit them and relationships had even developed further. Moreover, the situation became complicated due to the involvement of an "Old Catholic" (Dollingerite), Mr. Hans Lorenz of Canada. Thus, I began to take steps to foil any further mischief by the Zhongists by publicizing them and my critique of them as far as I could.
In consequence to this, the Conclavists who had been in touch with the Zhongists sent me a few mails that they had received from them. From one of these, I learnt that they (the Zhongists) had provided information to Robert Hess of SFN and he had featured the same in his 'Claimants' page, at this URL (http://claimants.homestead.com/Pius_XIV_press_release.html), but which was no longer available.
Recently, Robert Chung wrote to draw my attention to this page on Hess' site. (http://claimants.homestead.com/sfn041903.html)
I emailed and enquired with Robert Hess on these notices, and while I have not received any reply, it is interesting that this page has been put up, and that dated 19th April 2003 (Holy Saturday). Obviously enough, this is not at all the same page which had been originally specified. That is evident even from internal evidence: the information is subsequent to my contrary efforts. Thus, the source (Hans Lorenz) claims that there were infact two Zhong Huai-de Josephs, one who died in 1997 in Beijing and the other who is Pius XIV and died in 2002.
[I found this interesting pic of the schismatic, 'Beijing Zhong' - looks like a typical bureaucrat, not at all like an ecclesiast!]
Again, however, there is confusion. Terence Boyle, who apparently knows only one Zhong or Zong Huai-de, apparently identical to the Beijing Zhong who latter became and died as the President of Communist China's Domesticated Schismatic Sect, says that he (Beijing Zhong) was consecrated bishop in 1958, while Hans Lorenz tells Hess that the Beijing Zhong was consecrated in 1962 and the Taiwan Zhong was consecrated in 1958. The whole thing just adds to the confusion.
As an aside, I would have you remember that 'Pius XIV' started out as Fr. Robert Zhong, S.J., in the original accounts put out by Wen 'Cardinal' Cheng, who described himself as the 'Papal Secretary'. There is no explanation I have seen for how he transmogrified into Bishop Joseph Zhong Huai-de! Believe, me this fairy-tale is more fantastic - and diabolic - than any Harry Potter thing!
I leave you to compare the information provided by these pages and draw your own conclusions:
Lorenz is quoted by Hess as saying that "(Thsung) Zhong Huai-de was consecrated by Roman Catholic Archbishop Ignatius P'i Shu-shih on 1st of June 1958 in Taiwan."
"The three Bishops (Ignatius Pi, Joseph Zhong & Wen Cheng) became very good friends, while they were in Taiwan, while in the 'underground Roman Catholic Church.' "
"Bishops Zhong and Cheng stayed in Taiwan, with the 'underground Church,' and were therefore Roman Catholic Bishops all the time, to look after the huge amount of Catholics who lived there after escaping from the Communist Regime..."
Taiwan was liberated from the Japanese Empire, of which it had formed a constitutional part since many decades, by the Allies, and directly by the Americans, who turned it over, or assigned it to the Nationalist China government (Kuo Min Tang). Thus Taiwan was a free society from its liberation, 1945 to date, and had never been occupied by Communist China.
I ask, Which Underground Church in Taiwan? Why should there be any Underground Church in Taiwan? Taiwan, the Republic of China, is a free country, unlike Communist China. Just as free as America, its patron and guardian.
A Taiwanese 'Underground Church' would be fantastic and unbelievable.
It would have to be posited that there were Sedevacantists in Taiwan even from 1958 itself. That is saying too much.
If there had been any bishops escaping the Mainland into Taiwan, they would have been absorbed into the official Church on the island and placed in positions. There would be no logical reason for any bishop who fled to Taiwan to hide 'underground' and to refuse to fellowship with the official Church in Taiwan.
Granted that Taiwan Zhong was consecrated bishop in Taiwan on 1st June 1958, it is obvious enough that this would have been done by papal mandate. And since the last known legitimate pope recognized by all Catholics, Pope Pius XII (Don Eugenio Pacelli) died only in October 1958, if this consecration was not a schismatic act, it would have been by papal mandate from H.H. Pope Pius XII.
It is intriguing why this 'papal claim' is shrouded in mystery: the cloak-and-daggers stuff is entirely unnecessary. If Taiwan Zhong was consecrated bishop in Taiwan on 1st June 1958, let the documentary evidence be provided. That should not at all be difficult, should it?
I mean, if this account is true, then it would be part of an open and public record of facts, attested to in official documents of the Church and in official publications and notices, even from the Vatican. And whatever Taiwan Zhong's latter differences with the usurped Vatican, that public record can hardly be tampered with.
It is interesting that Hans Lorenz identifies himself as 'a senior bishop' with the Pius XIV group. At face value, one would think that he was a Catholic bishop or was made a bishop by this group. In fact, he is an "Old Catholic".
Lorenz states that "Due to the fact that..." Zhong... "was the only person to be elected by a Conclave of his peers, it is my opinion that he was the only true claimant to the Papacy, since all the others were elected by lay-people, which is not acceptable to Canon Law."
He seems to forget the election of 'Linus II' by a 'Conclave' composed of priests and bishops in Assisi in 1994.
Aside from that, it is utter nonsense that an election by lay-people is 'not acceptable to Canon Law.' Let him prove that.
Over to Hans Lorenz.
Prax Maskaren