Last Warning to Mr. Lundahl

©Prakash John Mascarenhas, Bombay, India. 13th July 2003. This page is Copyright.
Mr. Lundahl

I have tolerated you for long, perhaps too long. I have bent backwards to avoid antagonizing you by not contradicting you on many points, seeking to move forward towards unity. However, you exceed all the limits of tolerance.

Therefore, you are hereby warned. If you repeat this nonsense, libelling, calumniating and misrepresenting the Holy Father, you will be promptly expelled.

Prakash John Mascarenhas

Refutation of Mr. Lundahl's Lies

It should be evident to all who follow Mr. Lundahl's campaign of slander and misrepresentation against Pope Michael, and the refutations of his posts, that once again, Mr. Lundahl has contemptuously and contumaciously repeated his lies.

However, it is usual that most people do not follow the exchange out of laziness and prefer to merely take up salacious gossip and slander. That is why I need to set out once again the refutation of Mr. Lundahl's lies.

Against Mr. Lundahl's last attack, previous to this one, which was just before the Holy Father had gone off for some days, I had posted a refutation and had cited previous correspondence between the three of us on the same subject, the Holy Father, Mr. Lundahl, and myself, in which the Holy Father has clearly clarified long ago, when Mr. Lundahl had choosen to raise this point on his group "Antimodernism" that he is talking only of US Store Flour.

As party to that correspondence, Mr. Lundahl is aware of that, but chooses to ignore that, obviously because accepting this clarification and dropping his bogey would deprive him of his sport —his means of self-entertainment and recreation, by slandering, calumniating and libelling the Holy Father, scandalizing souls and contributing to and maintaining the spirit of hostility and ridicule fostered against the Holy Father, obviously with the intention of keeping souls away from the Church outside of which there is no salvation, even as he seeks to lead them merrily on, like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, from one grotesque clown, "Gregory XVII" of Palmar de Troya, to the clown "successor" of another clown Michael Colin.

That this is so can be easily verified by checking up those pages cited, and which I once again cite here below.

Additionally, the Holy Father has not attempted to teach in the document under question, but clearly and obviously merely sought to state his opinion and voice his concerns. I have already demonstrated that, if Pope Michael was validly elected Pope, he cannot be impeached for a mere opinion.

Moreover, as against Mr. Lundahl's stupid claims, I have brought in the Catholic Church's teachings wherein it is shown clearly enough that a Pope's opinion as a private person or a doctor or theologian has no bearing on the validity of his pontificate.

This thing has gone on long enough. I hope that this is the last I will have to hear of this nonsense.

Prakash John Mascarenhas
References:
  1. Wheatenhost I
  2. Wheatenhost II
  3. Wheatenhost III
  4. Decree on the Blessed Sacrament
  5. On Lundahl's Attack Against Pope Michael
  6. On Lundahl's Attack... Part II
Hans Georg Lundahl wrote:

Now that David bawden, who claims to be Pope Michael, is back, I can without dishonesty or fear of such post my reply to what Prax posted in his absence:

Prakash: "Pope Michael has, in one of his pages on his site, doubted the validity of US Store Flour to be regarded as legitimate matter - Flour of Wheat, necessary for the making of hosts for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. His grounds are that not only have vital matters been subtracted, but also that a significant portion of the end product is composed of foreign substances added to the processed flour."
Here is what David Bawden, aka Pope Michael actually said: "Today what is sold in the stores as white flour, from which it appears that modern hosts are made is not really wheat flour.� True it comes from wheat, but not from the whole grain.� Only the center of the wheat is retained, the rest cast off for animal food.� Many authors have shown that white flour is devoid of all nutritious value.� It is virtually worthless.� Modern white flour has been enriched, that is chemicals added to supply a few vitamins, which the government thinks should be added.� Therefore, even if white flour in its original state was valid matter, in its enriched state it would not be valid matter.� It is our humble opinion that white flour is not valid matter and that masses said with hosts made from white flour are as devoid of grace as the flour is of nutrition."
Let us compare what he and his defender actually said:
  1. Today what is sold in the stores as white flour, from which it appears that modern hosts are made is not really wheat flour."

    "Pope Michael has, in one of his pages on his site, doubted the validity of US Store Flour to be regarded as legitimate matter - Flour of Wheat, necessary for the making of hosts for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass."

    Where does DB/MI restricted this as being about only US conditions? Rather he claims this to be a world wide phenomenon, the reason for valid masses having ceased even if offered in preconciliar rite.


  2. "True it comes from wheat, but not from the whole grain.�Only the center of the wheat is retained, the rest cast off for animal food.�Many authors have shown that white flour is devoid of all nutritious value.�It is virtually worthless."

    "His grounds are that not only have vital matters been subtracted..."

    Here he follows the worthless opinion of "many authors". The centre of the wheat is what white flour comes from, and, including the germ came from through centuries. This David Bawden refuses to believe for a fact, unless ecclesiastical authority prove it. There was no need for ecclesiastical authority, since white flour was taken for granted. Using full grain wheat flour or flour not from wheat but other cereals was a mortification of the palate or a sign of poverty - not the rule followed at Kings' tables, a fortiori not when making hosts. While being accurate as to the fact that bran is removed, he is inaccurate as to its supposed novelty. If any author has called white wheat flour "devoid of all nutritious value" his opinion is devoid of all scientific and even common sense value. A man claiming to be Pope has no business following such authors, when it touches the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. I have conclusively proven to any man of unbiassed judgement that white flour is no novelty. Even King Alfred the Great, in translating Boethius' De Consolatione Philosophiae added a passage comparing the sifting away of the bran to the body's sifting of indigestibles into the natural outlet.
�
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1