Plain Answers For 'Confused' Trads

©Lucio Joao Mascarenhas. This page is copyright.

Your Excellency,

Please find my reply to your reply, below. My text is in red, with yours in blue:

Today we have at least 10 "popes" and all of them claim to be a legitimate one.

Are there, really? I know of innumerable frauds. However, there are only two real papal claimants, excluding Lucian Pulvermacher, and those are David Bawden and Viktor von Pentz, under the name of "Pope Michael I" and "Pope Linus II".

You are a bishop. And you ought to know some, at least, of theology. From the theological viewpoint, we can reject all of the other "claimants" on the grounds that their claims are pure heresy. And that the field is narrowed down to Michael and Linus.

Again, from theology, we know that given that procedures are legitimate, only the first in chronology of the claimants can be the real pope.

A second attempt is legitimate only when it is notorious or demonstrated that the previous attempt(s) is defective and therefore null and void.

Therefore, there is NO real confusion. There are NOT 10 "Popes" or "20" or even a "100" — there is just one — Pope Michael I.
We have to wait for God's solution in today's difficult times.

God has ended Public Revelation with the last Apostle, St. John. And therefore, he will NOT interfere to supply our needs, for any such action will NECESSARILY add to Public Revelation. And He has supplied us with all the means necessary to ensure our survival and moreover He has Endowed us with the Holy Ghost.

Therefore, to those who say, "We have to wait for God's solution in today's difficult times", I ask, "Do you know your theology? Or are you looking for another 'God'?"
Until then we have to provide all the Sacaments of the Church.

Which of any of these Consecrations and Ordinations is REALLY legitimate?

Mind you, I am talking of legitimacy, not validity.

Catholic Theology is very clear on the point. During a vacancy, our only legitimate program can be to end the vacancy — to supply the Church with the Pope. But what is actually happening today and since the Troubles began is that everyone is innovating by erecting himself his own bishop-pope instead of electing and supplying the Pope.

I consider all these ordinations and consecrations doubtful. Anyway, I have not any part in them, and I do NOT solicit any services from these doubtful ministers...
7 persons could not elect a legitimate pope.

Really? Cannot? On what basis in Catholic Theology do you make that claim?

As far as I know, there has NEVER been any rule as to the number of electors. And Popes have certainly been elected by seven and even less Cardinals.

But when a group of Catholics call an election, calling ALL those who claim to be Catholic today — that is, not having part in the Modernist Apostasy — to participate and elect a Pope to supply the vacancy, and if only seven assent and participate, then according to the norms of Theology and of Law, the election posted is VALID and BINDING and it is schismatic and heretical to reject this, and those who reject it contumaciously put themselves outside the Church of God.
Is your "pope" a bishop?

Catholic Theology teaches me this:

1. It is NOT necessary that the electee be a bishop or priest prior to his election.

2. According to Canon Law, the electee becomes Pope immediately upon his assent to his election, and not, as the Antichurch claims, in its "NEW Canon Law" that this occurs only after his Consecration.

3. After his election, it is necessary for him to procure consecration in reasonable time.

4. The Pope CANNOT solicit and or receive Consecration or Ordination etc at the hands of a bishop or bishops who have NOT submitted to him as Pope prior to the ceremonies; if he does so, he commits SCHISM and HERESY and TACITLY RESIGNS OFFICE!!!

What do YOU say?
Pope must be accepted by majority of traditional bishops, priests and laypeople.

And where is THAT taught in Catholic Theology, that for the legitimate electee to obtain legitimacy as Pope he needs to be accepted by all or even by a majority?

That claim makes shipwreck of Catholic Theology!

If that were right, then Innocent II was a fraud, and Anacletus II was the legitimate pope...
He must be a Bishop of Rome.

And so he is. But because a man is elected Pope, he immediately upon acceptance becomes Bishop of Rome AND Pope with complete jurisdiction even if without Episcopal Consecration.

Episcopal Consecration has to be obtained latter, and that ONLY according to Catholic Law!
Who meets all this requirements of all today's "popes"?

If you are asking that from Catholic Theology, the answer is clear: His Holiness Pope Michael the First, by the Grace of God, Pope and Bishop of Rome, etc.
Do you doubt it?

Bishop XYZ


Lucio Joao Mascarenhas (formerly "Prakash").

©Lucio Joao Mascarenhas. This page is copyright.
Hosted by