When Can We Say "Habemus Papam" Again?

 Every day we hear more and more clamoring for "Pope" Francis to resign from his alleged "papacy" over the homosexual abuse and cover-ups by his clergy, with evidence that even Bergoglio himself was involved in covering up for sodomites. Traditionalists know that even if Bergoglio "resigns," we merely wind up with another false "pope," because heretics (and at this point, apostates) cannot become pope. On October 9, 2018, it will be exactly sixty (60) years since the last true pope, His Holiness Pope Pius XII died, leaving us without a Vicar of Christ on Earth. We know the rest of the story. False pope and usurper Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) and his equally bogus Robber Council, Vatican II, set up a false religion using formerly Catholic buildings and pretending to be the Catholic Church. As theologian Berry wrote:

"The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church...there seems to be no reason why a false Church might not become universal, even more universal than the true one, at least for a time." (See Berry,  The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise , [1927], pg.119, 155; Emphasis in original). With the Church "driven underground" so to speak, the world has become just as bad (and perhaps even worse) than Sodom and Gomorrah. 

The question naturally arises, "How will we ever get another pope again?" This post will explore the false popes of the so-called Conclavists, those who believe (wrongly) that they can hold a conclave to elect a pope after the apostasy and/or death of all legitimate cardinals. There are also those who believe that they were chosen by Divine Intervention. While not Conclavists, properly so called, I will consider those as well. (It is not my intention to cover all of these so-called "popes," but I will give an example of each. In so doing, I hope that the error of  "make-a-pope" [with total disregard for Catholic theology] may be exposed). Finally, I will give a run down of what the Church teaches regarding electing a true pope, and refute the most common objection of those who follow Conclavists, as well as those who wrongly assert that the Church does not possess the Mark of Visibility in a state of prolonged sedevacantism. 

False Conclave = False Pope

David Bawden, aka "Pope" Michael, living with his mother on his Kansas farmhouse.

 David Bawden aka "Pope" Michael (b. 1959). A former Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) seminarian, David Bawden was expelled after approximately two years of study in 1978. Theresa Benns, a Home Aloner and self-professed "theologian," decided to "call a conclave." Bawden allegedly contacted all Traditionalists to attend his conclave, which was held on July 16, 1990. How someone could claim to have attempted to contact all Traditionalists in an age before computers is baffling. As a result, six people attended near his parents' Kansas farmhouse; Bawden's mother and father, two nice neighbors who were husband and wife, Theresa Benns, and Bawden himself. In 2011, Bawden claims to have been ordained a priest and consecrated a bishop by "Bp." Bob Biarnesen. The validity of "Bp. Bob" is certainly questionable, and the reason he allegedly "ordained and consecrated" Bawden remains a mystery. Why didn't he stay with his "pope," and become a "cardinal"? 

According to various sources, Bawden is believed to have anywhere from 30 to 100 followers worldwide. He has never held a real job, and resides on the farm with his aged mother. Benns abandoned and denounced the very "pope" she helped to "elect," and is back Home Alone. You can watch a documentary on his life at https://popemichaelfilm.com. 

Earl (Lucien) Pulvermacher aka "Pope" Pius XIII (d. 2009). Born in Wisconsin in 1918, Pulvermacher came from a large and devout Catholic family. He was ordained a Capuchin priest in 1946. Three of his brothers also became priests, one of whom (Fr. Carl Pulvermacher) joined the SSPX and was editor of its magazine The Angelus. Pulvermacher chose the religious name of Fr. Lucien, and was a missionary in Japan. After Vatican II, he left to reside in Australia and was affiliated with the SSPX for a time, but he left, unlike his brother. He offered the True Mass and sacraments for small groups of Traditionalists in the United States.

In the mid-1990s, he became a sedevacantist. (His brother, Fr. Carl, remained with the SSPX and his other two priest-brothers were always in union with Modernist Rome after Vatican II). After talking with some lay and clerical sedevacantists, they decided to hold a "conclave." About 30 or so people "elected" Pulvermacher (some voting via telephone) on October 24, 1998, and he took the name "Pope" Pius XIII. He appointed one of his followers, the Australian-born Gordon Bateman, as a "cardinal" in his "True Catholic Church." Bateman was a layman, but Pulvermacher concocted a novel way to obtain a hierarchy. Using an obscure passage from theologian Ott, he decided that as "pope," he could give himself the special authority to ordain Bateman a priest and consecrate him a bishop, while he was only a simple priest.  Then as "bishop," Bateman consecrated Pulvermacher a "bishop." 

 He had a (now defunct) website, truecatholic.org. and an small number of followers. Things went south for Pulvermacher when "Cardinal" Bateman discovered that Pius XIII had engaged in the occult practice of divination when in seminary. Bateman declared his "election" invalid and was subsequently "excommunicated." Pulvermacher had almost no followers left when he died in 2009 at 91 years old. 

"Mystical Popes"

Clemente Dominguez, aka, "Pope" Gregory XVII, during an "ecstasy" having a "vision"--even though he (literally) had no eyes. He had lost them in a car accident. 

There are false popes who claim they were Divinely appointed. I will only name the most infamous, Clemente Dominguez (d. 2005) who called himself "Pope" Gregory XVI. On March 30, 1968, a group in Palmar de Troya, Spain began claiming supernatural revelations from apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The apparitions involved four pre-teen girls – Ana Aguilera, Ana García, Rafaela Gordo and Josefa Guzmán – who said they saw Mary while picking flowers one day. The locals went to the spot of the miracle where all kinds of strange phenomena were claimed to have taken place. These involved occurrences  such as a local woman seeming to glow from within, a man running around on his knees at an incredible speed, hosts materializing on people’s tongues, and miraculous healings.

The Blessed Virgin was supposedly giving messages regarding the Antichrist, and a man named Clemente Dominguez became the "official seer" of Palmar de Troya. He claimed to have received the "stigmata" (Wounds of Christ), but one only needs to look at the photos to see it looks like he squirted himself with ketchup. He attracted quite a following, including some rather wealthy people who contributed large sums of money. He contacted Archbishop Peter Thuc, who fell for the story, and in January 1976, Abp. Thuc ordained and then consecrated Dominguez and four of his friends as priests and bishops using the Traditional Rite of the Church. Abp. Thuc was "excommunicated" by Montini (Paul VI) and then reconciled, before breaking away to ordain some sane men as Traditionalist bishops in this time of near Universal Apostasy.

Dominguez didn't understand Latin and had no formal training, so "Mary" conveniently said that Spanish was God's favorite language after Latin, and Spanish could be used in the Mass and sacraments. Dominguez lost both his eyes in a car crash, and it was told to him that when Montini died, he would be the next pope as "Gregory XVII."  God would publicly restore his sight after he became "pope" on TV so all would know he was the true pontiff. He then said "Mary" revealed what some have called the "crooked ears theory." Montini was a good and holy pope, but had been drugged and locked up in a closet shortly after his election by Masons. They had one of their own replace him by using plastic surgery to look like him, and that's how Vatican II was promulgated. If you look at photos before and after 1964, you will supposedly notice that post January 1964 photos show him with crooked ears--an imperfection that the Masons overlooked and "proof" of this goofball story.

 After Montini died, Dominguez was "mystically crowned pope" by Christ Himself, and called the First Palmarian Ecumenical Council. Things got super-weird at this point. Every priest in his sect (now an actual cult) was also a bishop. Since Dominguez had no training and attempted to translate the rites into Spanish, his ordinations and consecrations are dubious at best. He declared that Palmar de Troya and not Rome, would now be the seat of the Church (the pope must always be bishop of Rome--this is heretical). His "Palmarian Creed" declared Mary the "Irredeemed," for She who is without sin had no need of redemption (Pure heresy. Pope Pius IX, in his infallible declaration on the Immaculate Conception Ineffabilis Deus, declared that Mary was redeemed "in view of the merits of Jesus Christ"--in a unique manner prior to His death, which God knew with certainty would happen). There have been three "popes" since his death, each picked by their predecessor before he died. The sect can truly be called a cult that isolates itself from the world. Despite admitted affairs with his "nuns" Dominguez was "canonized" as "Pope St. Gergory XVII the Very Great" by his chosen successor. The cult has an estimated following of 1,500 people worldwide. 

The Teaching of the Church

It should hopefully be obvious to all as to what is wrong with the "popes" mentioned above. A "conclave" is not made up of your mommy, daddy, two nice neighbors and a female "theologian." Nor is some wacky fraud with heretical teachings and fake "miracles" (replete with conspiracy theories galore), a "divinely appointed pope." Our Lord said, " By their fruits thou shalt know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" (St. Matthew 7:16). If Bawden were truly pope, after almost 30 years, God would restore His Church, and not have him feeding the chickens on his mother's farm with about 100 followers. Yet, lest someone say that's just my opinion, there is a better reason to reject him and the other papal pretenders: they don't comport with Church teaching. 

There are three possibilities to get back a pope; (1) an imperfect general council, (2) sedeprivationism, and (3) Divine Intervention. Each will be examined.

An Imperfect General Council. According to theologian Bellarmine,"If there were no pontifical constitution in force concerning the election of the sovereign pontiff, or if by some mishap all the legally designated electors, i.e. all the cardinals, perished together, the right of election would belong to the neighboring bishops and the Roman clergy, but with a certain dependence on a general council of bishops." (Bellarmine: De Clericis, Lib. X, cap. x) An imperfect general council is called "imperfect" because no council is fully ecumenical ("universal") in the absence of the pope, and they meet because the designated electors of the pope--as well as the pontiff himself--are all deceased or heretics/apostates who lost office. The basis of this solution is that, in the absence of the pope, the bishops are the highest authority in the Church.The Roman clergy are invoked because with no cardinals, the remaining clergy of Rome become competent to elect their bishop, who, in virtue of being bishop of Rome, will be pope.

Problems. We can see that in the absence of elector-cardinals, the Roman clergy and/or bishops have the right of election, not the laity. First, who are the bishops? With various lineages not recognizing each other (Lefebvre, Mendez, Thuc) is it sufficient to get a simple majority together? How do we determine exactly all the Traditionalist bishops? Do the rules for a regular conclave apply? To what extent? 

Sedeprivationism. This is the thesis advanced by the late theologian Bp. Guerard Des Lauriers that the "seat is deprived" of a valid pope. He reasons as follows:

• The Eastern Orthodox have valid sacraments, which includes valid bishops. However, they do not have formal apostolic succession, only material secession. That is, they occupy the place of bishops(material)but lack all jurisdiction and authority (formal). They have no legitimate right to the authority of the office of bishop, since they were designated by those who were legally excluded from the Church.

• Sedevacantists put the V2 "popes" in the same boat as the Greek Orthodox, they succeed materially and without formal, legitimate designation. Sedeprivationists say the Vatican II sect cardinals and "pope" also succeed materially, but they DO have legitimate designation. Both sides agree they lack all authority and jurisdiction and are, therefore, false popes.

•  Designation to power is different from the power to rule. The president-elect of the United States is recognized as having the potential to rule, but he is not the president and not to be obeyed.

• Someone can have a legal status (de jure) different from their actual status (de facto). A person can murder someone and be in fact a murderer, but if and until convicted, he does not have legal recognition as such. The converse is also true. Someone my be wrongly convicted of murder and have the legal status of a convicted killer, even though he remains innocent de facto

• Since the profession of heresy by the hierarchy during Vatican II, the clerics lost all power to rule, but they retain the right to designate the ruler, since the Church never took that right away from the cardinals before the Great Apostasy. By Divine Law, heresy removes all power to rule, but not the power to designate the ruler

• The chosen heretic is pope-elect, but not the pope, because his profession of heresy prevents the authority from vesting. He has material succession, not formal, and holds the office of pope de jure, not de facto. In like manner, the president-elect cannot receive the power to rule unless and until he takes the oath of office

• The false pope retains the ability to designate men who will, in turn, designate a material pope. In this way the succession of St. Peter continues materially until a material pope publicly abjures his heresy, rejects and condemns Vatican II, and publicly professes the Catholic Faith. He then becomes a true, formal pope and needs to be ordained and consecrated in the traditional rite by a Traditionalist Bishop

(I credit Bishop Donald Sanborn, who wrote a magnificent article on sedeprivationism with the above explanation which I put into condensed form). 

Problems.  There is no discussion of such a solution pre-Vatican II. The great theologian Fr. (later Bp.) Michel-Louis Guerard des Lauriers was one of the greatest pre-V2 approved theologians, so his theory certainly carries much weight as he lived through the Great Apostasy, and was one of the few who rejected Vatican II and its "popes" from the beginning. He was consecrated a bishop by Abp. Thuc in 1981, and died in 1988 at the age of 89. His illustrious career included being professor at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome, and he was personal theological adviser to Pope Pius XII. Pope Pius asked him to draft the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, which infallibly declared the Assumption of Mary, body and soul, into the glory of Heaven. Fr. Guerard des Lauriers was the confessor of Pope Pius XII, until 1955 when he was replaced by the closet Modernist, Fr. Bea. He helped author the famous Ottaviani Intervention in 1969, which condemned the Novus Bogus "mass." In 1970, when Montini (Paul VI) began purging his newly founded sect of Anti-Modernists, Fr.Guerard des Laurier was one of the first to be removed from his teaching post. Unfortunately, he is the only theologian to come up with this solution to having no pope and elector-cardinals. It is plausible and logical, but the only way to know if it's true is to "wait and pray for a miracle of conversion." If it's not the solution, it will prevent some bishops from joining in an imperfect general council.

Divine Intervention. Could God, by a miracle, directly appoint a man as pope? Theoretically, yes, because Christ is the Invisible Head of the Church and He chose St. Peter as the first pope. However, mere logical possibility alone does not suffice. Clemente Domiguez and the "mystical" so-called popes fall into this category of claiming Christ directly appointed them pope. 

Problems. How do you authenticate such claims? If it were witnessed by thousands of people, such as the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, a possible case could be made. Dominguez was "crowned Pope by Christ" when Paul VI died, an event with no witnesses. A few saints discussed the possibility of such a miraculous, public appointment, but they were not theologians proposing solutions to an extended interregnum. With nothing to go on but the word of some person, or small group of people, with no obvious miraculous proof, such an "appointment" is dubious at best. According to theologian O'Reilley, "A doubtful pope may be really invested with the requisite power; but he has not practically in relation to the Church the same right as a certain pope - He is not entitled to be acknowledged as Head of the Church." (The Relations of the Church to Society - Theological Essays, [1882], p. 287).

Objections Answered

The following are common objections from those who accept Conclavist "popes," as well as "Recognize and Resistors" who claim that Sedevacantism destroys the visibility of the Church, so sedevacantism must be an error.

Objection: The Church teaches that if an imperfect general council, or the Roman clergy are all heretics/dead, etc, the right to elect falls upon the Church as a whole. This was the case, and that's why (Bawden, Pulvermacher, etc) was validly elected pope.

Answer: The church does indeed teach that principle. According to theologian Cajetan, "In case of doubt, however (e.g. when it is unknown if someone be a true cardinal or when the pope is dead or uncertain, as seems to have happened at the time of the Great Schism which began under Urban VI), it is to be affirmed that the power to apply the papacy to a person (the due requirements having been complied with) resides in the Church of God. And then by way of devolution it is seen that this power descends to the universal Church, since the electors determined by the pope do not exist." (Tract.1 de auctoritate Papae et Concilii, c.13). The Vatican Council infallibly declared:

"Therefore,if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." (Emphasis mine). The pope must be the bishop of Rome, and this by the Divine positive law.

Theologian Van Noort teaches: "...most probable opinion holds that not even the pope himself, nor an ecumenical council together with the pope, could effect such a separation, but that the connection of the primacy with the see of Rome is absolutely indissoluble…[the] more common opinion holds that the connection between the primacy and the see of Rome does not stem merely from the bare will of Peter… rather it holds that in some way or other this set-up is by divine decree." (See Dogmatic Theology, [1957], 2:274-275; Emphasis in original). All approved pre-Vatican II theologians admit the inseparability between Rome and the papacy. 

The case of Bawden is manifestly absurd on several counts:
1. He never even claimed to include Roman clergy or valid bishops.
2. The fact that such bishops will not hold an imperfect council does not allow the election to devolve to the Universal Church, it's when such is not possible--this is how something "devolves." If the College of Cardinals refused to elect a successor to Pope Pius XI, that does not give the bishops the right to an imperfect general council. There is no authority that supports such a contention. 
3. Does anyone think Bawden, his mommy, his daddy, two nice neighbors, and Theresa Benns represent the "Universal Church" ?
4. How is the "Universal Church" to be represented?
5. By what authority did Benns and Bawden "call a conclave"? They sent out invitations to the Kansas farmhouse, they (allegedly) reached everyone in an age before computers, they were free to disregard any bishops and/or Roman clergy who didn't attend, and those six people constitute the "electors" of the Universal Church?

The same is true of all Conclavists, to one degree or another. Dominguez ("mystically chosen 'pope'") actually "transferred the papacy" from Rome to Palmar de Troya, and taught manifest heresy.

Objection: If sedevacantism is true, the Church has been without a visible Head for 60 years, and lacks the Mark of Visibility required of the One True Church.

Answer: First, some preliminary remarks about the papacy are in order. According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine)

 Second, according to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)

Moreover, there was a de facto interregnum for 51 years during the Great Western Schism from 1378 until 1429, when Pope Martin V became the universally recognized pontiff. Prior to this, there were up to three claimants to the papal throne, all with arguments for their legitimacy. Only one (or none) could be the true pope. Which one was it? Mutual excommunications, appointing bishops and cardinals; to whom do you submit? Was the Church a "three headed monster" during this time? If you chose wrongly (in an age of limited education with no Internet or daily papers) are you "schismatic" and damned to Hell? There was no discernible pope, so according to the pope= visibility theory, the Church would have defected--an impossibility. That the Church is Indefectible is a dogma of the Faith. 

I once again quote theologian O'Reilley: The real nail in the coffin was delivered by him; one of the most orthodox and erudite theologians of the 19th century. He wrote his theology book in 1882 (a scant twelve years after the Vatican Council), entitled The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays. On page 287, he writes in reference to the Great Western Schism:

"There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...
The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree." (pg. 287; Emphasis mine). 

Lastly, according to canonist Wernz-Vidal, "... [the] visibility of the Church consists in the fact that she possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence is used, she can be recognized and discerned..." (See Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pg. 454; Emphasis mine). The Church does not, strictly speaking, need an actual living pope to be a visible society, the Mystical Body of Christ. 

Conclusion

When can we say "Habemus Papam" (We have a pope)? Unfortunately, I have no answer. We may be in the last days, and Christ returns making Pope Pius XII the last pope of all time. "When the Son of Man returns will He find faith on Earth?" (St. Luke 18:8). Hopefully, R&R clergy will recognize the vacancy,and then Traditionalist bishops can put aside their differences and work together for a real imperfect general council to elect a successor of Pope Pius XII. Perhaps sedeprivationism may prove true at some point in time. Perhaps God will intervene for the first time since choosing St. Peter as His first pope. It is also taught by the theologians that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See, except for that which would be contrary to Divine Law (such as a "heretical pope"--an oxymoron)

I'm going to conclude this post with a personal story of my time spent with my spiritual father, the great canonist Fr. Gommar DePauw. Back in the late 1980s, Father told me of a most interesting event that took place in his fascinating life as founder of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement. The year was 1966, the Robber Council had just ended, and he was flying around the United States giving talks to large crowds of people urging them to stay away from "the reformed Conciliar establishment" and its Novus Bogus "mass." He was trying to convince people to give his literature to every priest they knew and hold on to the True Faith and Mass with priests who rejected the reforms.

He was in Chicago, and had just finished giving such a talk in a large hotel room. He always ended with a question and answer session, but refused to see people individually, as most just wanted to argue with him and call him "disobedient." He made one exception: he would never refuse to talk to a priest who wanted to speak with him in private hoping that the priest wanted to join him, or could be convinced to do so. The hotel manager informed Father that a priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago wanted to see him in the lobby, and he told the manager he would go and talk to him. [I have redacted the names of those involved in this story, as I don't think Father wanted them made public---Introibo]

In the lobby, Father DePauw was greeted by "Fr. X," about 60 years old at the time. Standing with the priest was a very modestly dressed and attractive woman in her mid-forties, whom I'll call "Mrs. Y." The woman introduced herself to Fr. DePauw and told him that Fr. X was her confessor and spiritual advisor. "That's very nice," Fr. DePauw said. "But why are you here with Fr. X?" Fr. DePauw wasn't prepared for what she said next. "I have visions and get messages from the Blessed Virgin Mary." Stunned, as she didn't appear to be unstable, Father looked at Fr. X who was shaking his head in agreement. "Yes, she does Father DePauw."

Father then asked why they were in Chicago telling him instead of at the Vatican or explaining this to Archbishop Cody (Archbishop of Chicago at the time and to be made "cardinal" by Montini in 1967). Father really wan't prepared for what they said next. Fr. X said, "The message is for you personally." "What might that message be?" Father DePauw inquired. Mrs. Y told him, "Paul VI has been stripped of the papacy, and you have been 'mystically anointed' pope in his place, Your Holiness. What shall be your papal name?" Fr. DePauw immediately told them not to call him "Your Holiness" and that he definitely was not the pope.

"Our Lady will not take 'no' for an answer," they told him. Father said he wasn't saying no to the Blessed Virgin, only to their crazy and false story. Certainly, God and His Mother would inform HIM of such an event (which wouldn't happen anyway), and most importantly, he castigated the priest for believing something contrary to Catholic theology. As a priest, he should know better than to believe in "secretly, divinely chosen popes." He then politely asked them to leave him alone. "We will not leave you alone until you announce to the world you are pope," they called after him. "You'll be waiting forever," he answered. For the next ten months Fr. X and Mrs. Y showed up to every public talk Father gave around the U.S., waiting for his "announcement" which, of course, never came.

Father started getting worried about their stalking him. He was going to go and get a restraining order, but he didn't want to get a priest in trouble unnecessarily. He called the chancery in Chicago to tell them about Fr. X's behavior and asked them to order him to stop the stalking or he would take legal action. Eerily, the day before Father called, Fr. X packed his belongings and left his rectory without a trace, leaving only a short note saying he would never be back. Later, it was discovered Mrs. Y and her husband abandoned their house and also were never heard from again. "Can you imagine the damage to the Church I would have caused had I fallen for such a ridiculous story?" Father said to me. "We must know Catholic theology and never abandon it. That's the means by which God preserves us in the One True Faith."

 Let us hold onto the One True Faith of the One True Church. As Fr. DePauw prayed each night: "Lord, you know I've done my best today to keep and spread the faith. It is Thy Church. I'm going to sleep now and I trust in Thee, that Thou shalt ever take care of Her."