Heresy: Melanism & Pseudo-Mysticalism
©Lucio Mascarenhas. 27th Jan., 2004. This letter is written in reply to Daniel E. Jones' letter to me, dated 14th Jan., 2004. See Mr. Jones' letter here.
To,
Mr. Daniel E. Jones,
Westcliffe, Colorado.
Sir,
This is to state that I am in the receipt of your letter dated 14th Jan., 2004. I also wish to thank you for the inclusion of a picture of Mr. Gaston Tremblay or "Pope John-Gregory XVII" whose picture I have yet to have seen.
However, I must admit that I am greatly disappointed in what you write.
I am aware of your history, or a precis of it, that having been given me by His Holiness Pope Michael, (the late Mr. David Allen Bawden), whom I accept to be the legitimate Pope.
However, to answer your letter, point by point:
As much as it is not your (stated) intention of arguing with me, it is also not mine. I have not sought you out. Nevertheless, since you have sought me out in order to tell me your observations, as being a rebuttal of my teachings on what I define as the Pseudo-Mysticalist heresy, I beg leave to write to you setting out the defence of my position that you have impugned. Of course, I have no ability nor any desire to force you to read my re-rebuttal.
There is a distinction between Public Revelation and Private Revelation. So much the Church (prior to the Schism of Michel Colin, in about 1951, or to the Schism of Roncalli in late October 1958) taught, and therefore it is not, or, at least, ought not to be disputed between you and me, who both acknowledge the one Catholic Church up until the schisms of Michel Colin and Angelo Roncalli.
Public Revelation is that part of Divine Revelation that is necessary for all men to believe and to credit and to apply in their daily lives, in order to be saved, to attain to heaven.
Public Revelation is embodied in Apostolic Tradition, of which the Holy Scriptures form the chief part. (Oral Apostolic Tradition, passed down orally and largely recorded by the Fathers and Saints, etc., down the ages in their writings, forms the other part.)
Public Revelation was continuing during the times of the Apostles, and it was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the Apostles recognized and acknowledged the election of Paul as another Apostle, in addition, and by the direct intervention of the Holy Ghost.
However, it is Catholic Doctrine, that Public Revelation ceased with the death of the last of the Apostles, St. John the Beloved. To deny this is to deny the Catholic Faith and to become a heretic.
No one, nobody whomsoever, can add to or amend Public Revelation, which is sealed with the death of St. John. Anyone who pretends otherwise is a heretic and an apostate.
Private Revelation is that part of Divine Revelation that has been revealed in addition to Public Revelation, and which is not part of the prescribed Public Revelation — therefore, necessarily, it is not compulsory and binding on all believers, but one may choose to believe or not to believe, and to apply, or not to apply, etc., these Revelations.
Private Revelations are of three types — Approbated, Unapprobated and not condemned, and Condemned as False. What the Church, through its infallible Magisterium Approbates, is to be taken as a confirmed Private Revelation. All other claims of Private Revelations, not specifically forbidden or condemned, are merely putative, until the Church formally pronounces upon them, one way or the other.
The various — and quite substantial — revelations made to the prophets, mystics, doctors, confessors, patriarchs, martyrs, etc., of the Church down the ages, and not necessarily or merely restricted to those made to Sr. Margaret Mary Alacoque, Sr. Faustina Kowalska, etc., are merely and purely Private Revelations.
The same holds true for La Salette, Lourdes, Fatima, etc.
The putative case of the "revelation" discovered by Fr. Durando (regarding the contents of the 3rd. Secret of Fatima) may be safely disregarded. The world is full of various such claims, all contradictory of each other. One can, however, safely disregard this claim, myth or whatever about this Fr. Durando as the very basis of "Pseudo-Mysticalism" is rooted in heresy.
But let us take the (not so) hypothetical case where someone proposes that someone - Mr. X or Fr. Y, has been appointed "pope" in a purported or putative Private Revelation.
Now, in order that we be saved, it is absolutely necessary that we must acknowledge, submit to and obey the Pope. (Pope Bonifatius VIII, Unam Sanctam).
But with the popes, when we ask: "Who is the Pope?" so that we may go to him and submit ourselves to him, as yet, we were presented with the facts of his election by legal processes authorised explicitly or implicitly (e.g. Constance, etc.) by the past legitimate authorities of the Church, i.e., the past popes, who acted in the authority that Christ Himself delegated the first Pope, Peter:
"Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatsoever you shall loosen on earth, shall be loosened in heaven."
Therefore, in following this procedure, as yet, we have been safe and have not departed into the paths of error.
But once we are told, Mr. X or Fr. Y is the Pope, and he is Pope, not because of his purported election, but because of his purported institution as Pope in a purported apparition: We are on shaky grounds.
But more than "shaky".
In order to credit Mr. X or Fr. Y as Pope, we must credit that purported apparition.
That is, we must say of that purported Private Revelation, that it is obligatory for all men to believe this apparition as being true and as being universal and obligatory on all men.
Undeniably, we must say this, if we truly and sincerely believe that Mr. X or Fr. Y had been constituted Pope by and in that apparition.
But it is precisely that in so doing, that we invest that Private, Putative Revelation, with the characteristics that belong solely to Public Revelation.
And thus, by investing it (this "Putative, Private Revelation") with these attributes, we either create a new, rival Public Revelation, as the "New Church" of Roncalli et al, pretends, or we add that Putative, Private Revelation, to what is unequivocally Public Revelation.
And it then becomes necessarily true that we have contradicted the Holy Faith, that we have negated — or more precisely, transgressed against the Catholic Law that Public Revelation cannot be added to, amended, etc.
I leave you with this awful truth.
[There is, of course, another distinctly different, and quite as serious difficulty with "Pseudo-Mysticalism". That is: Before the candidate of a purported apparition can be accepted as legitimate, we are required to accept the purported apparition, itself, as being legitimate, for to accept the legitimacy of this apparition is the only basis of accepting the legitimacy of the claimant put forward by this purported apparition. Often, it is that Mr. X or Fr. Y, who is also "put forward" as the "beneficiary" of this purported apparition, who is also its sole "legitimising" authority; thus fulfilling the cliche of the infamous "vicious circle"!]
[See here for a treatment of Melanie's latter revelations, and their opposition to the Catholic Doctrine: Contra-Melanianism — "Rome will lose the faith, and become the seat of the Antichrist!"]
Since you have kindly taken the trouble to write to me and to advice me to adhere to Mr. Gaston Tremblay as "Pope John-Gregory XVII", I wish to seize this opportunity to seek from you, as Tremblay's representative, some necessary clarifications.
- What is the significance of Mr. Gaston Tremblay using that strange form of "title" — "John-Gregory XVII". Who were the other, necessarily predecessor "popes" John-Gregory from numbers one to sixteen? What happened to them? Why is it that there is no record of them? I would appreciate being illuminated on this point.
- Further, I am informed that he was made "Co-Pope" by Michel Colin, and that they both "co-reigned" during the years from 1963 till 1974, in which latter year, Colin died (I do not have the exact years, but that is immaterial). I merely wish to have you confirm this information for me: I find the "procedure" to be, to say the least, astounding.
- Nor is that the least of the aberrations that mark "mainstream" Colinism. And that is the information, now circulating as persistent — and rather reliable — rumours, that Mr. Tremblay has "co-opted" a woman as his successor, and that she is presently "co-reigning" with Mr. Tremblay!
If this is true, it seems to be that Colinism is going the way of the "Mariavites".
Who is this woman, what are her civil and "titular" names, and can you provide a photograph?
- I believe that one of Colin's followers in France has rejected Monsieur Tremblay and proclaimed himself Colin's successor, though I am not certain of the title he uses or the city of his residence. Is he "Pope Leo XIV" in Anjouleme, France? Or is it someone else? What is his civil name? Can you provide a photograph?
I would appreciate very much a response to the above points.
It is a pleasure to gain a picture of Mr. Gaston Tremblay, and one for which I sincerely thank you. Mr. Tremblay's picture is a welcome addition to my collection of pictures of kooks, weirdos, conmen and heresiarchs.
However, there was no need to send me Mr. Tremblay's sanctimonious and ridiculous "statement" addressed to "Pope John-Paul II". But bad enough as that was, your Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes #85, which you also enclosed, is very bad.
I say "very bad", because it is obvious that not only are you in cahoots with a known conman and heresiarch, Gaston Tremblay, but you add to this sin by your sins of "Ecumenism". You quote from an eclectic bunch of characters, including one Protestant "pastor" (how can the leader of a sect or a part thereof be a true Pastor or Shepherd? The title of Pastor belongs to the legitimate shepherds in union with Peter; those and none others.) Thus you aggravate your crimes by your eclecticism.
It would seem that this eclecticism is the reason for the Colinists instructing you to cease publication, which is a reasonable precaution, given the scandal caused thereby... Is this not obvious to you?
I find your ambivalent attitude towards your own position or title to be puzzling. Either you are a mere priest or a bishop. You cannot be both. Yet you acknowledge yourself that you have been "consecrated" by Mr. Tremblay, and you sport what can only be described as a "Bishop's Coat of Arms", thus contradicting your self-signification as "Father". Can I know the reason for this unseeming ambivalence — this unbecoming coyness? Is it that you doubt the reality of your "consecration" — evidently with good reason? For that matter, what is the basis of your "ordination"?
I thank you for your kind invitation to go up and visit Monsier Tremblay in order to "see the true Vicar of Christ." However, I regret to decline. I have no desire to seek an audience with Monsieur Tremblay, anymore than I have a desire to seek audiences with Don Clemente Dominguez y Gomez aka "Pope Gregory XVII of Palmar de Troya," the Dalai Lama, Puttaparthy Sai Baba, Baba Harideva, Monsieur "Ra-El", Monsieur l'Aga Khan, etc.
If I am an amateur kookologist, it is that I am a kookologist from afar.
Proximity to such "charming" characters is always dangerous to one's soul.
Yours sincerely,
Lucio Mascarenhas, formerly "Prakash"
©Lucio Mascarenhas. 27th Jan., 2004.