Evaluation of Hutton Gibson's Reply
©Prakash John Mascarenhas
If Morgan was disappointing, Hutton Gibson was profoundly confusing. Of course, in his letter, the first cause is the bad format used, which fails to distinguish the main body from the long dialog he quotes. Once that is understood, it can be remedied easily, as I have done in the electronic version of his letter.
Then the problems begin.
I cannot accept Gibson's suggestion that "the only way is to discover a genuine Catholic bishop who signed none of the documents of the Second Vatican Council who will publicly condemn the apostates in Rome and around the world, and assume command of the Church." I can see in such a procedure only an usurpation of the Papal Authority by such a bishop, and not his actual elevation to the papacy.
Mr. Gibson's attached tract is full of problems. I do not agree to the suggestion that Joseph Sirius had been elected pope and remained so, providing for his successor(s) even today.
I reject his statement that "Any fool can be pope; the Holy Ghost will preserve him in truth. He cannot wander accidentally into heresy." That attributes more to the gift of Papal Infallibility than is the fact. Papal Infallibility is a merely negative gift. It cannot prevent a pope from wandering into heresy accidentally.
I do not agree that we cannot be sure that Sirius was not pope or that he did not leave us a valid successor in the Papacy. The fact is evident that Sirius departed into schism by publicy remaining under the Modernist antipopes and dying in their communion. Any 'successor' he named or provided for would be null and void, because Sirius himself had lost any right to the papacy, if ever he had been the pope.
Gibson writes: If popeless we still lack a mandate to elect one. A good case exists for our generation's unworthiness of a pope and the ordinary means of salvation. If we were obliged to compensate for God's "oversight," how? What would qualify an elector? The Faith? Who will examine him? Who, where what is the standard? If we could pull it off, who guarantees the result? Where is our authority? Who will accept our pope? There must be some prospect of success, or the effort is unjustifiable.
Our unworthiness is not relevant. We can know if God wanted us not to work to restore the Church only by a direct public revelation — which is impossible anyway, since Public Revelation has ended with the death of St. John the Apostle, the last of the Apostles.
We do not need to compensate for God's oversight, precisely because God has not made any. He has precisely provided the Church for all eventualities, and expects us to use our brains and His provisions. Throwing up our hands in despair is not fulfilling His Will.
We must examine ourselves, each other. The standard is the published Magisterial teachings of the Church. Benns & Bawden suggested and used Denzinger as the reference point, and that is the best method, since even the Church authorized and uses Denzinger.
Truth guarantees us and our result. Truth is our authority. All those who wish to be or remain Catholic will accept the pope. The only standard of success is that the procedure is scrupulously correct and that no forgery or fraud is committed.
In opposition to Mr. Gibson, I have always held that the procedure used in the election of Mr. David Bawden has been valid and that if valid it would produce the true pope. I disagreed that Mr. Bawden had undergone the correct procedure, but now having learnt that the correct procedure was used, I acknowledge him as true pope.
©Prakash John Mascarenhas.