Venomous Brat Wants to Be Pope Kookius' Cardinal Nephew!
©Prakash John Mascarenhas, Bombay, India. This page is copyright
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:13:34 -0500
To: "Rev. Fr. John Fredricks, SofJ" <[email protected]>
From: "Pope Michael" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: too bad boy
Dear John,
At 06:24 AM 7/16/2003 -0600, you wrote:
Dear sir;
After researching, Canon 188 para 2, "Failure to take up Office within time required," which gives a two month time period for a person, who is not a Bishop, to be Consecrated to the Bishopric, and you by your own writings stated that it was thirteen years since you were elected, by your small group of six buddies, which is way outside the time period of two months. So YOU MUST RESIGN THE "PAPACY" AND LET A PERSON WHO IS A BISHOP OR WILLING TO BE CONSECRATED, WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS, and do not give me the phony excuse that there are no Bishops in this world, who can Consecrate you, because I know of at least five Traditional Roman Catholic Bishops.
And do not use the excuse that another "pope" waited six months, because that was done before this Canon was enacted, so it does not hold water
Pope Michael: Please do a little more research. The Pope, as author of Canon Law, is not bound by Canon Law. (Of course, he is always bound by the Law of God.) Futher, We have not refused to be consecrated, but no Bishop has submitted to Our authority as Pope and then consecrated. Maybe you should contact these five Bishops and advise them that they have a superior, which they are bound to submit to under the Law of God.
Pope Michael
Canon 188 Para 4, "Defected from the faith or never was of the faith." I find that since you, yourself, stated that you are not sure if your Baptism was acceptable, in one of your emails to my uncle, since you were not sure that your Baptism was properly performed, due to the fact that you are not sure if the celebrating priest had jurisdiction, and that came from your own fingers.
Pope Michael: I think this one is misunderstood. Baptism is valid no matter who performs it. Please read Will the Catholic Church Survive the Twentieth Century? where this is discussed in full. Also, if you are going to take the strictest interpretation, then you must also admit to your own suspension and irregularity and cease functioning as a priest, until a Pope can regularize your position in the Church. The same is true of your Uncle.
The Canon ends with the admonition that "Therefore the LAITY MUST with hold recognition and obedience from Clerics who illegally hold office"
Nice try at stealing the MOST HOLY OFFICE OF THE PAPACY, but it does not work, also I hold other information which also shows reasons for your disqualification, from one of your own friends, which includes the fact that you were asked to leave more than one institution of religious education.
Respectfully yours
Rev. Fr. John Fredricks, SofJ
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 07:10:26 -0500
To: "Rev. Fr. John Fredricks, SofJ" <[email protected]>
From: "Pope Michael" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: too bad boy
CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
At 03:47 PM 7/17/2003 -0600, Rev. Fr. John Fredricks, SofJ wrote:
Dear sir;
You are definitely not the "pope" and you never will be, so quite playing as a "pope," there better men than you and they are not "pope" either.
Pope Michael: Please provide juridical proof of your claim. I can provide juridical proof of the validity of my claim. A summary will soon be posted.
Stop playing at some thing you are not. The last legitimate Pope was HH Pope Pius XIV, who passed away on 15 Sept/2002, and there has not been a Conclave to elect another Pope, and be guaranteed, that the last person in the world, to be considered for the papacy, would be you, David Bawden.
Pope Michael: I have my doubts about the whole Pius XIV affair. In any case, following the principle that the first Catholic elected is valid, I precede him by some years.
We the members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, do not accept you, any more than we accept Fr. Pulvermacher, or Peter II of France, or Gregory XVIII of Spain, or Linus II of England, or Hadrian VII of San Francisco, or Gregory XVIII of Quebec, as "Pope," since all of you are both phony, and a farce to the Church.
Pope Michael: Can you prove your membership in the Catholic Church? Please provide proof of Baptism, ordination information, etc. demonstrating that you are in the Church and have not defected by heresy, apostasy or schism. Also that your ordination is in keeping with the laws of the Church.
By the way if you want me to resend you any of the emails which I have already sent, then do not ask other people to send it to you, you phony, imposter, and usurper of the Most Holy Office of the Papacy, because you, like Fr. Pulvermacher, were shoed in by a small group of your buddies, none of which were Cardinals, Archbishops, or Bishops, so you are 100 % invalid.
Pope Michael: I found the email in question, and have been busy with many affairs, including being out of town for three weeks. Let us exercise true charity here.
By the way, David, to you I am a legitimate Priest of Pope Pius XVIV, so therefore address me as such, and you do not have the Power or Authority to state otherwise, so show some respect, to your Superiors in the Clergy, since you do not belong to the Clergy.
Pope Michael: I have the right and duty to question the legitimacy of your ordination, especially since I can demonstrate that there are many illegitimately ordained at this time. Even if you are legitimately ordained, you are not my superior, as you certainly aren't my pastor. Also the knife cuts both ways. Until you prove that I am an antipope, you should show me the respect I am due. I have been lenient with many in this matter, while they make investigation.
Pope Michael
Respectfully yours
Rev. Fr. John Fredricks, SofJ
Check reference doc: Dead Zhong, Dead Wrong
Extraordinary, very extraordinary behaviour from this nephew of Hans Lorenz. But not really surprising: the kinship shows!
This man has the insolence to write insulting letters and sign-off as "Respectfully yours". Does he know the meaning of "Respect"? Does he know Decency? Or is his cultivation of hypocrisy so entire as to eliminate all qualms of conscience?
This is a man who uses extremely insulting language towards the recipient of his letter, calling him a "phony" and such like things, and then hypocritically signs-off "Respectfully yours"! Does hypocrisy have no limits?
Fact 1: It is unlawful for the pope to submit to be consecrated bishop by a man who does not publicly acknowledge him pope. Such behaviour is grievously heretical and schismatical, and such a pope is to be rejected out-of-hand as a fraud, a warlock and a ravening heretic.
I am fully aware that one particular "papal claimant", who claimed to have been "constituted" pope in and by a purported "apparition" has received "consecration" from a Bishop Vagante. This is unlawful behaviour, and by doing this, the man who claims to be pope tacitly and public resigns office, if he ever really had it.
Fact 2: IF David Bawden is NOT pope, Mr. Fredericks and his uncle Mr. Lorenz need not trouble themselves any further. They merely need to state and publicize their case, and proceed with the election that they are dying to fabricate. There is no need for them to make a spectacle of themselves, contorting themselves with the strangest gymnastics and hoarsely demanding that Mr. Bawden resign from his claim, which according to them is really non-existent, in order to make way for Mr. Lorenz's election...
And by this ridiculous behaviour, Mr. Lorenz and Mr. Fredericks give themselves away as nothing but fraudsters and conmen — carpetbaggers out to defraud His Holiness Pope Michael into resigning the Papacy in their favour!
Fact 3: Mr. Lorenz put out particular claims against H.H. Pope Michael, that he had been "asked to leave more than one institution of religious education". H.H. Pope Michael denied the allegation, and demanded that Lorenz corroborate it or withdraw it.
This is common law and decency, something that any civilized man can understand and will comply with. Only criminals will refuse to acquiesce.
But it is precisely that Mr. Lorenz ignored H.H. Pope Michael's request and blasely reiterated it, and reiterates it, as if he had not been challenged, or as if, having been challenged, he had proven the truth of his claims.
And Mr. Fredericks parrots his uncle. Amen! As Uncle, so nephew! Vermin the lot of them, accursed breed!
Fact 4: Mr. Frederick attacked me for exposing Lorenz's part in the Pius XIV fraud. The main perpetrator, Mr. Robert Chung, who commenced this as a spoof, in my understanding of the facts, has now withdrawn from it. However, Mr. Lorenz continues as if nothing has happened.
Mr. Frederick wrote to me, identifying himself as Lorenz's nephew and as a Jesuit missionary on an Indian reservation. I did a google search and could find nothing on him.
I note that Fredericks, in his recent letters, styles himself "SofJ" instead of the customary "SJ".
Mr. Fredericks, himself without any authenication as to origin, demands insolently of H.H. Pope Michael, that he be addressed "respectfully" and as his (Pope Michael's) "superior". This is the height of insolence and self-conceit.
But what exactly is Mr. Fredericks himself? What manner of animal is he?
We do not really know, for Mr. Fredericks is more coy about these pressing facts than a woman is traditionally about her real age. But he does provide us some clews.
He identifies himself cryptically, as "I am a legitimate Priest of Pope Pius XVIV" (sic!).
That is interesting. It so happens that I have completely exposed this whole Pius XIV thing as a fraud and as nothing more than a fraud. I have proven beyond any doubt that this bogey, "Pius XIV" never existed as a real man, whether as "Fr. Robert Zhong, S.J." or as "Bishop Joseph Zong", which are the two different identities attributed to him.
And I have also exposed Mr. Lorenz's part in this whole sordid affair - how he came in to hijack a collegian's spoof into a conman's snakeoil salesmanship project.
Evidently, then, Fredericks' "priesthood" is about as genuine as the proverbial "snakeoil" that Mr. Lorenz is hawking!
Mr. Lorenz claims to be a "Catholic Bishop." The facts are that he procured schismatically consecration at the hands of Old-Catholics, and has imbibed their ideas, so much so that he makes apologies for them. And we are all painfully aware that the Catholic Church does NOT recognize Old-Catholic orders, for the simple reason that it has been greatly adulterated and debased.
Evidently, then, "Fr." Fredericks has been "ordained" by none other than his own uncle, Mr. Lorenz. And as with uncle, so with nephew, we know what is the value of this "ordination"!
©Prakash John Mascarenhas, Bombay, India.