Bawdenite Difficulties
Lucio Mascarenhas, Bombay. May 28th., 2004.
Orthopapism II/Michaelinum | Index of Articles
Dear Madame
Thank you for your kind interest in writing me and seeking to "disabuse" me of the notion that Mr. David Bawden is Pope. I am certain that your interest in doing so is genuine and honest, and for that I am grateful.
I will therefore reply to the points you have raised one by one, in as far as I am capable.
At the outset, I wish to point out that I am not a scholar. Nor do I have access to sophisticated books and philosophical or theological treatises. I do have a small collection of books, rescued from the dustbin; Catholic works from before the Great Apostasy.
However, even so, I have always believed that the Catholic Faith was neither founded by sophisticated philosophers and elites, or that it was meant to be restricted to these types, but that the Gospel message was always simple and meant for all men, simple as well as sophisticated, peasants as well as philosophers.
To the best of my knowledge, I have not read a "dissertation" in all my life, and I believe that if I find one, I would not easily recognize it.
I do not believe that the persons you have listed are "renowned theologians". I believe that a theologian is, technically, in the language of the Church, one who has been so qualified after a rigorous process under the guidance of the Church. These men, on the contrary, are largely self-taught. They are a bunch of amateurs.
When I say "amateur", I do not intend to either denigrate them or the contributions that, some at least of them, have made, to the precious task of building up the Catholic Resistance.
Among those whom I know, through their writings, and whom I respect and cherish, are Patrick Henry Omlor and Dr. Coomaraswamy.
In 1992-1993, when I was seeking, God providentially put in my hands, the literature of Dr. Coomaraswamy, which helped me to clear my mind of many doubts, and helped me to move on. I credit my decision to leave the "Catholic Church" and return to the Catholic Church, to him, when all the others in the group with me compromised and choose to stay on.
While studing the issues that Catholicism faced as a result of the Great Apostasy instituted by Roncalli, I came to realize the utter necessity of electing the pope, if not already elected.
I call myself a Papist, with pride, to scorn the Anglicans who contemn us under that name. Yet, I also define myself as an
Ortho-Papist, one who seeks the true pope and who believes in the orthodox doctrine of the papacy, as against the
Psuedo-Papism of Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla and the New Church, the Antichurch. [The "Palmarians" and the Colinists of St. Jovite are also, by definition, Psuedo-Papists.]
I began to formulate my ideas and I wrote a tract,
"Repair My Church" which I attempted to circulate. At that time, I had no knowledge of David Bawden. I had heard rumours of "Linus II".
My thinking, as set out in this tract, set me on a path different from that of Coomaraswamy or of Patrick Henry Omlor, another person, whose publications, the "Interdum" I cherished and learnt from.
I stress this because I wish to point out that my thinking was not influenced by Bawden and or Benns, but developed independently.
For me, the Radio Replies, the Catholic Encylopedia together with the writings of Dr. Coomaraswamy, were crucial in developing my thinking.
The fourth major influence was the book,
"The Church Teaches: Documents of the Church in English Translation" by the Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's, Kansas.
Largely, you rely upon not some concrete evidence against Pope Michael, but upon innuendo — not what has been critically said of him, but of an absense of any thing being said at all.
I had been influenced, to my misfortune, by Lane, when I railroaded my criticism of Pope Michael. It was based not on the facts from the book, but from facts and arguments twisted out of the book.
When I had been requested to check my criticism once again, I agreed to do so, certain that I was right. However, as I went over the book once again, I found that I had allowed myself to be railroaded.
Pope Michael is not my guru. I have not learnt any of my beliefs from him. But I too have arrived at the same principles by which he was elected. When I found this fact to be incontrovertible, I had to make a choice.
I could stand on my pride and self-respect, and not budge, or I could choose to keep in mind my obligation to Christ and not allow pride and self-respect stand in my way. It was — is
— humiliating for me to admit publicly my error and, worse, to acknowledge the man whom I had viciously attacked, as the Pope. However, it was my duty before God, and I chose the humiliation on earth, which is temporary, as against the humiliation of being bound over to Satan for eternity.
Personally, of course, I was rather hoping for either an Asiatic pope or an African pope. All the whites I have personally experienced seem to have successfully brainwashed themselves to extinguish all traces of the Christian past and to remake themselves as neo-Philistines, brainlessly adulating their enemies, brainlessly adulating either Hinduism or some other paganism or Islam or some other nonsense.
Too often, I have noticed that many — principally those, even Catholic, of "White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant" heritage — substitute "social niceness" for the faith, congratulating themselves that they are thereby "Good Christians", and deploring as "foolish" those who take the Gospel of Christ literally.
To my mind, it was this same attitude that the English already exhibited during the Council of Constance, and is the underlying belief of the Continental "Gallicanism", Anticlericalism, Laicisism, Josephinism, Regalism, etc.
This is the same attitude that causes so many men, "wise" in their own conceits, to reject and to refuse any part in the effort to elect a pope, given that Sedevacantism is true, and to scorn and contemn those who have proceeded nevertheless...
I am sick of whites and their monumental stupidity. I am amazed at the total rejection of their Christian past: It is as if 2000 years of Christianity, St. Gregory of Nazianzen, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., etc., never happened.
I look at the white people who come here to Bombay, and I am amazed. I have little respect for whites. I therefore was rather hoping for a Pope from some other race. However, I make it my business not to either quarrel with or take issue with the choice of Christ Jesus, but to merely submit. Therefore, I have submitted to Mr. Bawden recognizing him as the true Pope.
There was no call at all for making baseless and unproven insinuations, by using words like "plot" against Mrs. Benns and Pope Michael. If you have evidence, show it. If not, do not make unfounded allegations. That smacks of Calumny, slander, libel, backbiting; not Catholic "virtues".
Therefore, I can sum it up this way: There is nothing in what you have to urge against Pope Michael.
However, I will take up your allegations, or whatever they are, against Pope Michael and his electors, one by one.
But their silence shouts loudly that Benns and Bawden are not worth the trouble or time, so Benns and Bawden are completely ignored, whereas any other deceiver on every front has been written about and exposed by these scholarly men, and exposed in depth.
Their silence witnesses to nothing more than their ignorance and contempt, indeed superciliousness towards the faith, and towards those who are like little children when it comes to the faith. These are men who are puffed up in their social conceit and can not but look down upon those they think are lowly.
I am not impressed by their superciliousness. And, even without knowing about Benns and Bawden, I had arrived at the conclusion that if anybody attempted a papal election, they would by and large meet with nothing but scorn from the majority. The fault is not of Benns and Bawden; it is purely and solely of these people who confuse their subjective social ettiquette with the norm of the faith.
The laity never had the option to claim jurisdiction, according to Parsons, one of their references, and according to Champoux, another dissertation writer, he agrees that laity jurisdiction can only come from proper authority.
Miaskiewicz states on page 229 of his dissertation that "the Code is very specific in stating that the pastor cannot validly grant the faculty...to just anyone... Nor can he extend his jurisdiction beyond the limits within which it is restricted by law.
Let me know if you need more references on this or if you will remain in the opinion that a layman can claim jurisdiction from nowhere. He has no Doctor of the Church to support him. There is no tradition, in fact these scholars point away from laity taking ecclesial jurisdiction without permission, nor can they be given such authority as there is no precedence.
Benns and Bawden have never claimed to jurisdiction as laity. You labour under a grievous misunderstanding of facts and concepts. Benns and Bawden act on the Catholic principle that the electors of the Pope do not delegate him their powers, but merely are used by God to select the particular man who is to be the matter of the Papal institution, succeeding in the place of Simon Peter. None of the electors of the popes down the ages, whether Cardinals, Emperors, Councils, etc., pretended that by electing the pope, they were exercising jurisdiction. This allegation can arise only from a profound confusion over basic Catholic concepts!
David is unlikely to point these tapes out to his followers.
It is not moral or Catholic to lightly slander anyone. Pope Michael and Mrs. Benns have been very jealous of presenting the true facts of the election, even with tedious detail, and are open to any legitimate challenge. The cowardice is not on their part, but on the part of Patrick Henry who has made himself part of a campaign of lies against Bawden and Benns, and who does not have the courage to act as a Catholic and confront them directly, and explode every of their bases or admit himself wrong.
I had drafted out my reply a long time ago, but due to my failure to find one crucial quotation, I had not been able to finalise it. It is now only a few days ago that I did accidentally find that quote, which is why I am able to reply to you at long last.
I refer you to this page,
collation.html, and especially to the extracts from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Infallibility.
Catholic Encyclopedia: Infallibility. Emphases added in blue text.
Hence, also, the Gallican contention is excluded, that an ecumenical council is superior, either in jurisdiction or in doctrinal authority, to a certainly legitimate pope, and that one may appeal from the latter to the former. Nor is this conclusion contradicted by the fact that, for the purpose of putting an end to the Great Western Schism and securing a certainly legitimate pope, the Council of Constance deposed John XXIII, whose election was considered doubtful, the other probably legitimate claimant, Gregory XII, having resigned. This was what might be described as an extra-constitutional crisis; and, as the Church has a right in such circumstances to remove reasonable doubt and provide a pope whose claims would be indisputable, even an acephalous council, supported by the body of bishops throughout the world, was competent to meet this altogether exceptional emergency without thereby setting up a precedent that could be erected into a regular constitutional rule, as the Gallicans wrongly imagined.
A similar exceptional situation might arise were a pope to become a public heretic, i.e., were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholica. But in this case many theologians hoId that no formal sentence of deposition would be required, as, by becoming a public heretic, the pope would ipso facto cease to be pope. This, however, is a hypothetical case which has never actually occurred; even the case of Honorius, were it proved that he taught the Monothelite heresy, would not be a case in point.
The right to summon an ecumenical council belongs properly to the pope alone, though by his express or presumed consent given ante or post factum, the summons may be issued, as in the case of most of the early councils, in the name of the civil authority. For ecumenicity in the adequate sense all the bishops of the world in communion with the Holy See should be summoned, but it is not required that all or even a majority should be present.
As regards the conduct of the deliberations, the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative; while as regards the decisions arrived at unanimity is not required.
Finally, papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees, and this must be subsequent to conciliar action, unless the pope, by his personal presence and conscience, has already given his official ratification.
I also offer these other extracts:
Catholic Encyclopedia article on Constance:
It had come about that, whichever of the three claimants of the papacy was the legitimate successor of Peter, there reigned throughout the Church a universal uncertainty and an intolerable confusion, so that saints and scholars and upright souls were to be found in all three obediences. On the principle that a doubtful pope is no pope, the Apostolic See appeared really vacant, and under the circumstances could not possibly be otherwise filled than by the action of a general council.
The canonical irregularities of the council seem less blameworthy when to this practical vacancy of the papal chair we add the universal disgust and weariness at the continuance of the so-called schism, despite all imaginable efforts to restore to the Church its unity of headship, the justified fear of new complications, the imminent peril of Catholic doctrine and discipline amid the temporary wreckage of the traditional authority of the Apostolic See, and the rapid growth of false teachings equally ruinous to Church and State.
Under the circumstances the usual form of papal election by the cardinals alone was impossible, if only for the strongly inimical feeling of the majority of the council, which held them responsible not only for the horrors of the schism, but also for many of the administrative abuses of the Roman Curia, the immediate correction of which seemed to not a few of no less importance, to say the least, than the election of a pope. This object was not obscured by minor dissensions, e.g. concerning the rightful rank of the Spanish nation, the number of votes of the Aragonese and Castilians, respectively, the right of the English to constitute a nation, etc. The French, Spanish, and Italian nations desired an immediate papal election; a Church without a head was a monstrosity, said d'Ailly.
Catholic Encyclopedia, on Papal Elections:
A layman may also be elected pope, as was Celestine V (1294). Even the election of a married man would not be invalid (c. Qui uxorem, 19, caus. 33, Q. 5). Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void. Immediately on the canonical election of a candidate and his acceptance, he is true pope and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole Church. A papal election, therefore, needs no confirmation, as the pontiff has no superior on earth.
Lastly, I refer you to these relevant pages:
- Orthopapism — Mission Statement
- Extracts from Benns & Bawden Defending Extra-Ordinary Election
- A Defense of "Conclavism" Against John Lane
©Lucio Mascarenhas. May 28th., 2004.
Orthopapism II/Michaelinum | Index of Articles