Pamela Nolan: Home Alone?
This page is composed of four separate texts. The first is a letter by a Mrs. Nolan, forwarded me by Bob Morris, a "Home Aloner"; then comes two letters in reply by H.H. Pope Michael, which I have reformatted; and lastly my own response.
Though I suspect that the ideas put out by Mrs. Nolan is an expression of the "Home Alone" ideology, I am not too certain, for this is the first time I have seen this particular formulation; also because this formulation (Nolan's) is sadly, but incontrovertibly, heresy!
Prakash J. Mascarenhas
From: "Robert Morris" <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 22:38:14 EDT
Subject: Good letter from Pamela
To The Editor
The Francinta Messenger
A "letter to a Faithful Catholic" in the recent Francinta Messenger refers to a "doubting Thomas" who is struggling with the concept of the Perpetual Succession of the Papacy in view of the current run of the anti-popes. The doubting Thomas "just can't believe that the vacancy of Peter's Chair could last forty years or more, and he is assured that men cannot put an end to the Perpetual Succession of Popes," and that "to put an end to the Perpetual Succession of Popes you would first have to put an end to God Himself"
Any number of novus ordoists of traditional leanings remain in the conciliar church precisely because of their own recognition of the major problem a forty year interregnum and mass apostasy in the Church presents. They recognize the ramifications, possibly more completely than many sedevacantists. They recognize the lack of necessary jurisdiction that would ensue, and more importantly, they see how irreversible such an event would be. How could it be reversed?
Centuries of prophecy supported the Advent of the Redeemer. Great Prophets supported by the Grace and Power of God, performed countless miracles over thousands of years of time, giving their lives in every sense, in order to prepare a chosen people for the coming of the Messiah. Every finger pointed to a babe lying in a manger in Bethlehem. Magi from afar adored Him, bringing Him gifts. Angels from above announced His presence to the shepherds in the fields. A jealous king sought His life even before He took His first Steps.
His public life was spent in the single task: the creation of the Church, through which alone, men could hope for salvation. No soul, not Abraham himself, entered the gates of Heaven until Christ opened them through His chosen tool, the Catholic Church. Our Lord left no reasonable doubt as to His identity and mission. He raised the dead and made the blind to see. He multiplied loaves, all in support of this one blessed purpose. Human law called for the testimony of two witnesses, so Our Lord was Transfigured before us, His divine nature revealed by God His Father, and as if God's word were in need of verification, Moses and Elias came to Earth in order to verify it.
The Redeemer provided every means necessary for the infant Church's survival. He left His teachings and His grace. He gave His very life for its continual nourishment, appointing divinely supported leaders and sacraments. He sent the Holy Ghost down upon it to guide and protect it.
All of this went into the establishment of the papacy, which alone in its turn, protected it. Now, how would you have the loss of these things repaired? They are lost. They are not just hiding. Without the papacy, no rebirth is possible. Thousands of years of effort went into the one small declaration, "Thou art Peter."
Should we elect another pope? Aside from the unlawfulness of this effort, it is impractical. Several popes have already been elected without any success. We are fragmented because we have lost our principal of unity, the Papacy, and none of our necessarily fragmented efforts to unite can succeed. No Catholic would unite with heretics for the purpose of saving the Church. The very idea is the epitome of perversity.
Should we wait for a pope in hiding to emerge? Aside from the fact that no Catholic pope would be hiding in today's chaos, there is the problem of the complete lack of potential verification of his authenticity. God would give us no credit for following a heretic, as His efforts to establish the papacy in the first place, boldly bear witness.
Will the present apostate hierarchy miraculously convert if we pray hard enough for them? Even if apostates were known to recant (which is a very rare thing indeed, historically speaking), the law very sensibly prevents them from maintaining an office which they never validly held to begin with. It would be a wonderful thing if John Paul II became a Catholic; but it wouldn't restore the Church.
Will God Himself, perhaps, visit us personally and speak to us, shining rays of celestial light on a man He has chosen to repair the Church? If that could have worked, He might have preferred to have done that the first time, instead of watching His only Begotten Son live a life of sorrow and die a painful and humiliating death on an infamous cross.
Why do we not ourselves, as Catholics true to tradition and the law, see the seriousness of our position? If "to put an end to the Perpetual Succession of popes you would first have to put an end to God Himself," then all I can say is that it's been done before. The life of the Church is said to mirror Christ's earthly life. Just as the Son of God - God Himself - died on the Cross, so we have seen His hierarchical Church die. Both deaths were unthinkable, yet both occurred, and we find ourselves as completely helpless to repair the second as were the early Christians to repair the first.
Saints have commonly interpreted End Times Prophecies to include an anti-pope who makes a Great Apostasy possible. Such a scenario is not heresy and does not contradict the Church's indefectibility. "The Church" is composed of believers everywhere, of which the current Church Militant is only a small part. The Church continues today, and like Christ at His Resurrection, it will be renewed, but it will never return to how it was before. It cannot be repaired by men's efforts to any more than Christ stood in need of human efforts to Rise from the dead.
We do ourselves no favor by underestimating the gravity and irreversibility of our situation. God alone can save us. The "doubting Thomases" among us, I think, might perhaps do well to focus less on the world and men, and more on the Power, Justice and Mercy of God.
Pamela Nolan - 7217 County Road So., Arapahoe, CO 80902
Reply By H.H. Pope Michael
Message #416 Christania
From: H.H. Pope Michael
Date: Thu Oct 2, 2003 8:28 pm
October 2, 2003
The Holy Guardian Angels
Dear Pamela,
Robert "Bob" Morris ([email protected]), emailed me a copy of your letter to the editor of the Francinta Messenger, which has also published my material in the past, including material on jurisdiction and the necessity of a Papal Election in 1988-9, which was co-authored by Teresa Benns.
A "letter to a Faithful Catholic" in the recent Francinta Messenger refers to a "doubting Thomas" who is struggling with the concept of the Perpetual Succession of the Papacy in view of the current run of the anti-popes. The doubting Thomas "just can't believe that the vacancy of Peter's Chair could last forty years or more, and he is assured that men cannot put an end to the Perpetual Succession of Popes," and that "to put an end to the
Perpetual Succession of Popes you would first have to put an end to God
Himself.
Let us analyze the doctrine involved here. The Vatican Council (DZ 1825)
infallibly declares: If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of the blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema.
And the Oath Against the Errors of Modernism professes (DZ 2145): Thirdly, likewise, with a firm faith I believe that the Church, guardian and mistress of the revealed word, was instituted proximately and directly by the true and historical Christ Himself, while he sojourned among us, and that the same was built upon Peter, the chief of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors until the end of time.
And now back to your letter: Any number of novus ordoists of traditional leanings remain in the conciliar church precisely because of their own recognition of the major problem a forty year interregnum and mass apostasy in the Church presents. They recognize the ramifications, possibly more completely than many sedevacantists. They recognize the lack of necessary jurisdiction that would ensue, and more importantly, they see how irreversible such an event would be. How could it be reversed?
First of all, the event cannot be irreversible, because to conclude that
the Papacy has ceased is to deny the doctrine proclaimed infallibly by the
only Vatican Council, as quoted above, that Peter will have perpetual
successors.
To conclude, though, that because of this doctrine, Roncalli, Montini, Luciani and Wojtyla must be Popes is also to deny the infallible doctrine proclaimed by Pope Paul IV that it is impossible for an heretic to become Pope, in his Bull, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.
And you ask: Should we wait for a pope in hiding to emerge? Then you correctly conclude: Aside from the fact that no Catholic pope would be hiding in today's chaos, there is the problem of the complete lack of potential verification of his authenticity. God would give us no credit for following a heretic, as His efforts to establish the papacy in the first place, boldly bear witness.
And so the hiding pope theory is ably refuted. Also this theory rests on a man, who died 14 years ago, Giuseppe Siri. Of course, there are many more problems with the Siri theory, but this is sufficient for now.
Will the present apostate hierarchy miraculously convert if we pray hard enough for them? Even if apostates were known to recant (which is a very rare thing indeed, historically speaking), the law very sensibly prevents them from maintaining an office which they never validly held to begin with. It would be a wonderful thing if John Paul II became a Catholic; but it wouldn't restore the Church.
And thus you have also ably refuted the Sede-Occupantists, who believe that Wojtyla is Pope, and the Material-Formal crowd, that believes that nothing can be done until Wojtyla steps down after such a miraculous conversion.
Yes, we should pray for his conversion, just as we might also pray for the conversion of the Dalai Lama or the Archbishop of Canterbury, but we cannot wait for any of these three non-Catholics to convert to do what we ought to do.
Should we elect another pope? Aside from the unlawfulness of this effort, it is impractical. Several popes have already been elected without any success. We are fragmented because we have lost our principal of unity, the Papacy, and none of our necessarily fragmented efforts to unite can succeed. No Catholic would unite with heretics for the purpose of saving the Church. The very idea is the epitome of perversity.
Before answering this third objection, let me ask you a simple question:
How will the Church be restored? You rightly observe that without the
papacy, no rebirth is possible. And so how will this be solved?
All the holy Fathers agree that after the death of antichrist the whole
world will be converted, and although some of them assert that the world
will last but a few days after his death, while others say a few months,
some authorities insist that it will continue to exist many years
after.
St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Vincent Ferrer, St. Francis of Paula,
and a number of other saints have predicted this ultimate universal
conversion. Saint John Eudes, page 319, The Admirable Heart of Mary.
I do not wish to go into a discussion of Antichrist, but want to observe that all are agreed that he did not come before Roncalli usurped the papacy in 1958, so this universal conversion is still in the future, since it is obvious it has not yet occurred.
Should we elect another pope? No, because this was accomplished on July
16, 1990. The enclosed document outlines the process in detail, and Will
the Catholic Church Survive the Twentieth Century? called for the election, proving its necessity and legitimacy.
Aside from the unlawfulness of this effort, it is impractical.
How can electing a Pope be unlawful, when to refuse to elect a Pope leads to heresy?
There is one constant, Popes are elected.
They are not appointed by God (with the exception of Saint Peter) or by some apparition, but they are elected. And the election can be defective or even simoniacal, but none-the-less it is valid, unless an heretic is attempted to be elected as occurred in 1958. (The 1963 and both 1978 elections are invalid on several bases, as demonstrated in the above mentioned book.)
Saint Alphonsus states: "It doesn't matter that in past centuries some pontiff has been elected by fraud: it suffices that he has been accepted after as Pope by all the Church, for this fact he has become true pontiff."
Several popes have already been elected without any success. We must ask
ourselves why this happened? The reason may be that people wished to
remain with their heretical clergy, who provide them with the Latin Mass,
but in violation of the doctrines and laws of the Catholic Church.
The second attempt (resulting in "Pope Linus II, Fr. Victor von Pentz) was based upon a lie from one near participant, Kenneth Mock, who helped
prepare the election, who said I had resigned in favor of this election. Quite a feat, when I did not hear about it for several years afterwards. The electors failed in their duty to determine if an election had actually occurred.
The third attempt is invalid, for the same reasons as above, and also because Lucian Pulvermacher was a heretic long before his attempt.
We are fragmented because we have lost our principal of unity, the Papacy,and none of our necessarily fragmented efforts to unite can succeed. And so we must get it back. No Catholic would unite with heretics for the purpose of saving the Church. The very idea is the epitome of perversity. And this was what kept some people away — We were insistent that people make the Profession of Faith and renounce all of their heresies prior to participating in the election.
Pamela, I ask you to look into this matter seriously. The Redeemer provided every means necessary for the infant Church's survival. He left His teachings and His grace. He gave His very life for its continual nourishment, appointing divinely supported leaders and sacraments. He sent the Holy Ghost down upon it to guide and protect it. Jesus has left us everything we need in Catholic doctrine and Canon Law to provide for the
election of a Pope.
And submission to the Pope is necessary for salvation as Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam infallibly declares: "Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
And let us heed Saint Antonine of Florence (as reported in Studies in Church History, volume 2, page 530): "Although it is necessary to believe that there is but one supreme head of the Church, nevertheless, if it happens that two Popes are created at the same time, it is not necessary for the people to believe that this one or that one is the legitimate Pontiff; they must believe that he alone is the true Pope who has been regularly elected, and they are not bound to discern who that one is; as to that point, they may be guided by the conduct and opinion of their particular pastor."
And so we are left with one of two conclusions:
- I was validly elected on July 16, 1990 as Pope or
- There is not a Pope yet and an election is needed soon.
In charity and justice you have a duty to answer this question, as to who
the true Pope actually is. It is not a matter that can be left aside. I
will be sending this letter also to several by email, who have sent copies
along to me and/or others. (I ask these people to forward this by email to
you, if possible, I will be sending one by regular mail.) I await your answer.
Yours in Christ the King,
Pope Michael
From: H.H. Pope Michael
Date: Thu Oct 2, 2003 8:51 pm
Subject: Dishonesty
Dear Friends,
I received an email from [email protected], but he has set
his email to reject my emails. And so, could anyone forward this for
me? I don't think it is fair to email someone, then block their reply. I
consider this dishonest, which is why I do not block emails.
Pope Michael
Friends,
Nolan's letter is very interesting. Interesting, in that hers is an excellent exposition of the ideology of one of the factions of the Catholic Resistance to the Modernist Apostasy; interesting and impressive, too, that she does not misdiagonise the situation nor allow herself to be sidetracked by many of the fantastic "smart" ideas thrown up within the Resistance.
However, it is unfortunate in that she clubs together with these fantastic errors the position that Catholics can elect or supply ourselves the Pope, and repeats as a given, without any actual application of her mind, the claim that "we cannot supply ourselves the pope" (my words), or that such action would be "unlawful" and "impractical" (her words).
The direct consequence of her position is, very evidently, a tacit quietism, which is also just as evidently a condemned heresy...
The position that Catholics can and ought to act and do such acts that result in the election of a pope is not some maverick idea invented by some smart alecs, but stands as a development and projection of ideas and actions in the history of the Church. There is Constance and Pisa.
And even before Constance and Pisa, there is the Paschaline Crisis, (Pope Paschal II, Compromise with the Emperor Henry V at Sutri) when a bunch of French bishops (who were not Cardinals), under Archbishop Guy of Vienne, the Papal Legate in France, and his brother, Archbishop Hugh of Besancon, threatened the Pope with deposition, the election of a substitute Pope and their defection to this substitute Pope instead of Paschal, unless he withdrew his plan to permit and legitimise lay investiture at the hands of the German Emperor Henry V. Though they did not act on their threat, for Paschal fell in line with them, there was and is no known condemnation of the principles these bishops invoked, and Guy of Vienne even succeeded Paschal II, (after Pope Gelasius II who reigned for one year), as Pope Callistus II! (Ref. Rama Coomaraswamy)
Given all these facts, then, the claim or belief that it is illegitimate for Catholics to attempt, as a purely human effort, to supply the Pope, is wrong, is not grounded in fact or Catholic Doctrine but stands purely in the subjective misunderstanding of these folks.
Prakash J. Mascarenhas