Monday, September 17, 2018

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 

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, 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 primacylet 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. 

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."  


  1. The adherents of the so called Thesis, Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Ricossa and company, actually changed the meaning that Bishop des Laurier intended, and they conveniently waited for his death to promulgate their version, as they knew Bishop des Laurier would have objected. The original Thesis was meant to have an expiration date upon the death of the last bishops and cardinals elected by Pius XII. It would in no way apply to the likes of modernist bishops consecrated after V2. Even if BerGOGlio wakes up tomorrow and burns the documents of V2 in the St Peters as Bishop Sanborn often says, this would in no way, shape or form make him pope! For goodness sake, he is not even a valid priest! The Thesis applies quite well in these times only to Queen Elizabeth II actually, not the imposter hierarchy of the fake conciliar church, what is troublesome is that the promotores of the a Thesis do not recognize is that it is the whole stinkin hierarchy that is the problem, and the modernist mentality that has seeped into every nook and cranny of the modernist church. It is very dishonest that they use the name of Bishop des Laurier to promote their insane version of the so-called Thesis. This is absolutely not what he intended, his was a solution in the immediate aftermath of the destruction.

    1. What you write is very interesting. What’s your source for claiming sedeprivationism was taught differently by Bp. Guerard des Lauriers? The V2 bishops are invalidly Consecrated from 1968 onwards, but even a layman can be validly elected pope.

      If he did indeed hold that bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII are necessary, according to, there are two such bishops still alive. Bp. Jose Rodriguez Consecrated in 1955 for a diocese in Columbia (currently 99 years old), and Abp Carvallo Of Chile Consecrated in 1958 and he will turn 103 yrs old September 22, 2018.

      God Bless,


    2. What Anonymous wrote makes sense since the argument about the Eastern Orthodox is based on valid ordinations. The only way the Sedeprivationism position can hold today is if the ordinations of the Novus Ordo are valid. Is it possible that their ordinations are valid?

    3. @anonymous9:46
      That doesn’t matter as layman can (and have been) Cardinal-electors, and a layman can be validly elected as pope. Holy Orders is not necessary. Pope Fabian was elected as a layman and was subsequently ordained and Consecrated.

      God Bless,


    4. I also read a similar account concerning Des Lauriers. If P6 and J23 were not popes and their legislations were null and void, they would not even be able to create cardinals. The theory applies to J23 and P6, but no longer applies, because there are no cardinals left who can elect.

  2. Thank you for that story of Fr. de Pauw! Knowing what we now know, I would guess that that priest and his woman companion were secrets agents sent to discredit and ruin Fr. De Pauw, as often their modus operandi was/is to appeal to the vanity and pride of men to make them fall. The good and holy Fr. De Pauw would have none of it, which does not surprise me, and I am very grateful anytime you give us insight into the life of this saintly man and priest. Thank you!

    1. I’m always happy to share my memories and lessons learned from Fr DePauw!

      God Bless,


  3. The well known Mr. Louis-Hubert Remy, from France, who was a very close friend of Bishop Guérard, discussed the Tesis with its author several times, and in one of those, Mons. Guérard acknowledged that his Thesis would die with the death of the last cardinal created by the last undoubted Pope, Pius XII.
    His supposed heirs have betrayed the thought of their master, and Father Ricossa and Bishop Sanborn are perfectly aware of this.

  4. But even in the original version of the Thesis, it wouldn't be conclusive, because all the cardinals and bishops lost their juridiction when they acknowledged the legitimacy of the Robber Council's documents, December 7-8 1965, and consequently, that the conciliar church is the Catholic Church.
    From that moment onwards, even the Pius XII created cardinals were no longer able to elect a Pope, because they had lost all their powers and faculties along with their title of cardinals of the Holy Roman Church.

  5. The Thesis supposes that even if they have lost their juridiction, or have never possessed it, (like the cardinals created after 1958),mysteriously, they still retain a remnant of their former power, the most important no less, that of designating a Pope.
    Well, sorry, but that would go directly against the very intimate nature of reality:
    Either you possess your power legitimately, with all its proper faculties and rights, or you possess nothing.
    Losing the cardinalate, but still retaining some real right of designation violates the ontological consistency of those juridical realities, and therefore, is absurd, and totally impossible.
    Bishop Sanborn tried to proove that such thing is possible, but unsuccessfully, I think.

    1. @JamesStuart
      I don’t understand how the alleged original version of the thesis worked. Only non-heretical cardinals designated by Pope Pius XII could designate a material pope? That doesn’t make sense. They could elect a real pope in place of the heretic Roncalli or Montini. If you have a citation to a reliable source, I’d appreciate you sending it on. I distrust people claimed to be “well known.”Perhaps he was well known in certain circles, but how do we then authenticate what was allegedly said?

      I think sedeprivationism is a possibility. Just as a US citizen can lose certain rights if incarcerated, he does not lose ALL his rights. Could this be true in regards to cardinals designating a material pope? Perhaps.

      God Bless,


    2. Just think if Jorge decides that the World Council of Churches is to elect the next pope. According to the thesis, Jorge has the power to designate electors, and the electors have the power to elect or designate the next pope. This makes no sense. If P6's legislation(s) concerning the Mass, and the sacrament of orders (among other things) was null and void, then his legislation concerning conclaves, those who are to participate, those who are not, and his making a bunch of his heretical henchmen into "cardinals" is also NULL and VOID.

    3. Many see it that way, as do I. However, in your hypothetical, he would just continue the designations without authority until the material pope converts.

      God Bless,


  6. After Peter, the Church, through the clergy and even the people of Rome, have the power to designate their Bishop, thus the Pope. We can safely say that all those who accept V2 and the NO cannot be of the Church since they hold a false faith. If the traditionalists who live in Rome were to elect a Bishop for themselves, he would become Pope. I wish they would.

    1. Tom,
      Generally, that seems accurate but there are problems. How do we identify all Traditionalists in Rome, how many are necessary to elect a pope (simple majority, two thirds,etc) and what rules apply? More study and research must be done.

      God Bless,


    2. Popes and bishops have been elected by popular acclamation before. A good study of past papal elections would help us understand what exactly it takes to elect a Bishop of Rome. In times past, popes where elected by one man, the Holy Roman Emperor, I believe. All this led to confusion and eventually the College of Cardinals was established about 1000 years ago.

    3. such an election can happen, but perhaps prudence would argue that we should strive that Rome becomes as traditionalist as possible beforehand, so the Modernists can be in effect rooted out of the city and we don't simply set up a rival church. that may just cause further scandal and thus lose more souls than it would gain. if indeed we do set up a rivalry, at least one would hope the traditionalist pope camp has hope of winning the struggle against the modernist antipapacy; so again, prudence can help Providence move along and further scandal would be avoided. instead, conversion would be encouraged.

      speaking of civil authority, assuming there is ever favorable ones to our holy cause, perhaps the surviving descendants of the Holy Roman Emperor can be appealed to; and/or the local Roman/Italian authorities, that for all effects and purposes inherit the "patrician of Rome" titles. for starters, the takeover of the See by modernists could be used by the Roman/Italian authorities to renege on the Lateran Treaty, arguing that since the See is vacant this would render the temporal authority over the Vatican State also vacant, and therefore no legal recognition (nor allowances) could be made of it unless a true Pope sat in the Chair of Peter. this lack of recognition may be extended as well by the Catholic monarchies and even other Catholic states that subscribed such treaties with the real trad unoccupied Holy See.

      such Catholic confessional states, specially the monarchical ones, would have a sacred duty to recognize the true Pope, and thus would be encouraged to renege on the modernist antipapacy; which so much trouble causes their nations today, and yet gets away with it through abusing the Vatican microstate status and legislation. these hypothetically just Catholic rulers would at least affirm the traditionalist camp - and thus a hypothetical imperfect council that elected a true trad pope to restore the Holy See.

      (considering Italian regional tensions and the potentially restored Holy See's needed independence, one could even argue the Papal States could be restored and North and South Italy can therefore peacefully split; but, again, would need even more secular authority support for that, and perhaps would not be absolutely necessary; could be argued the Holy See needs just enough room and temporal independence, not too small so as not encourage financial tax haven subsistence, not too large so as not to get absorbed in temporal disputes)

      again, this would happen assuming these authorities, or at least most of them, are friendly to the cause and not compromised; and even then, lack of rules concerning how many we would need on our side doesn't help. would we only need the Hapsburgs to sign on? and/or the Italians/Romans? and/or also other monarchs? and how many would need to approve, if not all of them? and/or would the (traditionalist) people of Rome have a say, and/or how many of them - that may be important, in that would it make a difference for the conclave if there were a lot of trad laity but few trad priests in Rome, or viceversa? at any rate, most current European Catholic statesmen and their subjects are thoroughly worldly, but there may be exceptions: some royals, not just Austrian ones; as well as Polish, Hungarian, Austrian, Italian, Spanish, French, and other Catholic-nationalist rightwingers. one example is recently Matteo Salvini in Italy, who got into scuffs with Bergoglio and might find the sede arguments interesting.

  7. I've been a trad all my life, and I've heard my share of strange and creepy stories in the trad world, but man, the story of Fr. X and Mr. and Mrs. Y easily takes the grand prize.

    I'm really curios if the police investigated the disappearance of Mr. and Mrs. Y? Usually when someone just vanishes from their daily life without any explanation it's because they got murdered!

    1. Fr. DePauw never followed up on the situation. There was some kind of an investigation, but to the best of my knowledge and belief they were never found. Father was simply told by a priest he knew in Chicago—- who was familiar with Fr X—- that none involved in stalking him were seen again. It was if they dropped off the face of the Earth.

      “Creepy” doesn’t even begin to describe it.


  8. But to give any election a perception of validity in the trad world, I do think the SSPX needs to stop pretending that non Catholics are Catholic.

  9. Introibo, I am the first anonymous, yes as the other commentator says, Mr. Stuart, this is well known in France, common knowledge.

    1. Ok. Even if so, we still have a problem authenticating what was said, and as described the alleged original thesis is nonsensical. Maybe you could clarify it and supply a citation.


    2. Well, I heard It from Mr. Remy himself several times, I will have to ask him if and where he published it.
      But even this way, I agree that It still doesn't make sense.
      Pius XII fell out of the visible Church when they accepted Vatican II as a legitimate Council.
      So since December 7 1965, they were no more able to elect a Pope.
      Talking about materialiter after that is plain senseless.

  10. Hello Introibo, that last comment should be anonymous, I am the first anonymous, but I think I could have inadvertently sent it first with my sons gmails account which he has for school, please make sure it appears as anonymous! Thanks! God bless!

  11. I hold the sedeprivationist opinion and it is the only logical conclusion in my meaningless opinion.
    I could be wrong but nothing else makes sense in a legally speaking.
    Interesting article though I think Bp.Bawden is not lying about contacting trad-catholics via mail in 1989.
    He said one valid Thuc line Bishop almost attended and was talked out if it by someone.
    I don't agree with him being Pope but compared to many people in 2018,Bp.Bawden is very humble,polite,well meaning,charitable,and much more intelligent than he is perceived.
    Thank you for this article,it's interesting.
    God bless.

    1. Thank you Andrew! Sedeprivationism may indeed prove true. I, for one, have not ruled it out for whatever that’s worth. I’m just a layman too!

      God Bless,


    2. As I have said before, at least Bawden acts and speaks like a Catholic. No one can accuse Bergolio of such a thing.

    3. Tom,
      At this point the Imam of your local mosque is more Catholic than Bergoglio!


  12. How can these traditionalist clergy operate without a Papal mandate? Per canon law, all clergy must have authorization from the Pope to function. Because there has been no known pope since Pius XII dies in 1958 to supply a papal mandate (which usually expires after a few years), all these traditionalist and sedevacantist clergy are operating in violation of the Church law, so they and the laypeople participating in their ceremonies are apparently in mortal sin for doing so.

    Just because Teresa Stanfill Benns participated in the false conclave (but subsequently determined it was invalid, admitted she was in error, and refuted “Pope” Michael) does not mean that her arguments against clergy operating without a papal mandate are void. I think that she is within her rights as a Catholic woman to give her analysis of the situation and doing so does not make her a theologian. Her arguments using canon law, pre-1958 theological works, and the Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis Pope Pius XII are in the following essays:

    I have never seen anyone, including the giants of traditionalism and sedevacantism, address and refute her arguments with justification drawn from previous Church experience, Catholic theologians, and/or Church law. I just hear “epikeya” this or “apostolic succession” that, and then the debate gets shut down.

    I believe the home alone position is correct, and I will continue to believe it is correct until someone adequately addresses and refutes Ms. Stanfill Benns’ arguments or until the Church is restored and rules against it.

    The only way I could see traditionalist clergy functioning is if they were ordained or consecrated under Pope Pius XII, given a lifetime papal mandate, and never committed communicatio en sacris by recognizing the Vatican II antipopes or celebrating the new mass. Any such clergyman would be in his mid-eighties, at least, and I am not aware that there are any.

    It would seem that divine intervention would be the only option at this point if God wishes there to be a pope before the Second Coming and the Last Judgment. Several of the saints have said that St. John the Evangelist is still alive and in Heaven and will return to fight the Antichrist. If he is still alive and returns to Earth, he would maintain apostolic succession and could consecrate other men bishops, and they could elect a true pope.

    1. No approved theologian of which I’m aware teaches St John to be alive. As a matter of fact his death is morally certain as public revelation ended with the DEATH of St John.

      Benns dared to presume to “call a conclave.” Her mistake is so over the top she has zero credibility. A basic misconception is that Canon Law must bind in all situations. It does not. In matters of Divine Law it is, of course, unchanging. Having a papal mandate to consecrate bishops is not of Divine Law but only Ecclesiastical Law.

      There is also historical precedent for this situation. Prior to Vatican II, the longest interregnum was from 11/29/1268 to 9/1/1271 (2 years and 10 months)between the death of Pope Clement IV and the election of Pope Gregory X. Several Diocesan Bishops died during this time. Ordinary jurisdiction can only be granted by the pope. However, nearby bishops consecrated a priest of the diocese to act with supplied jurisdiction until the papacy could be restored. What happened when Pope Gregory X was elected? He praised the bishops who so acted for giving the people access to Bishops and the sacraments. The bishops so consecrated, he ratified and then supplied them with Ordinary jurisdiction.

      Benns stands refuted many times over.


    2. Here is some evidence that theologians say that St. John is alive:

    3. To the anonymous OP, your statement that you "have never seen anyone, including the giants of traditionalism and sedevacantism, address and refute her arguments" is actually explained by a statement you made earlier, which is that "giv[ing] her analysis of the situation ... does not make her a theologian."

      Catholics do not bother to refute "analysis" from people who are not theologians. We are here to learn from real Catholic theologians, and attempting to refute statements by people who are not such is a waste of time.

    4. TIA is R&R. They reach wrong conclusions on many things. The Blessed Mother is resurrected not “alive.” Pope Pius XII specifically declined to rule on whether she died and was resurrected before the first instance of bodily corruption could happen, or she had her body glorified without dying. The majority of theologians are of the former opinion.

      Their is some support for the resurrection of St Joseph. A rather enigmatic text in the Gospel of St. Matthew (27:52) implies that at the resurrection of Christ, there were other bodies that rose from the dead united with their souls. "And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose,.." This would imply the Old Testament "saints" who achieved salvation (i.e., Isaiah). There are some theologians that teach these people had to die again, but there are difficulties with this opinion. If reception of Christ's Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist is a pledge of our future resurrection, how much more so should be the pledge for the man who protected and loved Him as He grew into Manhood? Should he not be given an anticipated resurrection and be united (body and soul) with Jesus and Mary in Heaven? Theologian Filas calls the Assumption of St. Joseph "a probable theological opinion." Being resurrected after death is not the same as still being alive as is the case with Elias and Enoch.
      Neither of these Old Testament prophets has died. St. Paul tells us that Enoch was taken so that he might not see death, "By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had testimony that he pleased God." (See Hebrews 11: 5). The same is related to us regarding Elias, "And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold a fiery chariot, and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (See 4 Kings 2:11).

      The theologians teach they were placed somewhere in a happy state, where they exist incorruptible, until their return. God gave them such a unique grace for two reasons: (1) to show the possibility of the indefinite permanence of humanity, and (2) to confirm our faith in the resurrection when they return.

      Finally, the later Theologians were unanimous in declaring “... public revelation was completed with the last apostle..” and St John died a natural death circa 100 A.D. (See e.g., Theologian Nicolau, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, 1955, pg 91).

      Knock is a private revelation and as such, need not be believed.


    5. Novus Ordo Watch, which is the gold standard and encyclopedia of Sedevacantism (and the site that provided me the evidence that convinced me that the Sedevacantist position was correct), has articles – amounting to many hundreds of pages worth of scrolling – that refute the arguments of non-theologians, among them Michael Voris, John Salza, Jimmy Akin, and especially Christopher Ferrara who advocate recognize-and-resist or the Novus Ordo. Unfortunately, he shuts down the comment thread anytime someone brings up the issue of jurisdiction. If he could refute home alonism, I have no doubt he would.

    6. The owner of NOW (for whom I have the greatest respect) is not out to refute the Home Alone position since it is not, strictly speaking, heretical.

      It’s true that Ordinary jurisdiction is lacking. However, that need not keep anyone Home Alone. Fear of attending the Mass and Sacraments outside danger of death is foolish in the extreme, but not heretical as you are not denying an article of Faith. Since the Church never infallibly defined the role of supplied jurisdiction (especially in a time of near universal Apostasy), people can believe it is insufficient or not applicable in this situation.

      However, the theologians and canonists such as Guerard des Lauriers, Carmona, DePauw, etc, did not see it that way, and they are most knowledgeable—part of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. Also note the owner of NOW attends the CMRI.


    7. Give me one example of a pre-1958 theologian endorsing the breaking of Canon Law during an interregnum. Give me one example of a pre-1958 theologian promoting the concept of epikeya. Epikeya is Protestantism.

      Specific evidence cited by Mrs. Stanfill Benns from Canon Law, Denzinger, Papal documents, and approved theologians that I believe proves her case:

      “Manual of Christian Doctrine” by Rev. John Joseph McVey, seminary professor:

      Q. 73: Why is it not sufficient to be a bishop or priest in order to be a lawful pastor?

      A. Because a bishop must also be sent into a diocese by the Pope, and a priest must be sent into a parish by the bishop. In other words, a pastor must have not only the power of order, but also THE POWER OF JURISDICTION, (emph. McVey’s).

      Q. 77: How is the power of jurisdiction communicated?

      A. Priests receive their jurisdiction from the bishop of the diocese; bishops receive theirs from the pope; and the Pope holds jurisdiction from Jesus Christ. A bishop who did not have his spiritual powers from the Pope, a pastor who did not have his from the lawful bishop, would be AN INTRUDER OR SCHISMATIC,” (emph. McVey’s).

      Canon Law (1917 Code) 122: An ecclesiastical office cannot be obtained without a canonical appointment. By ecclesiastical or canonical appointment is understood the conferring of an ecclesiastical office by the competent ecclesiastical authority, according to the sacred Canons. (Canon 147.)

      Canon 188, Note 4: Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n.4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith. [This means that the Bishops consecrated under Pope Pius XII lost their office when they signed the Vatican II documents, swore allegiance to the Vatican II antipopes, and celebrated the Novus Ordo Mass and could not therefore ordain priests or consecrate more bishops even if their papal mandate had not expired.]

      Denzinger 960 (1957 edition): Those who undertake to exercise these offices [of priests and bishops] merely at the behest of and upon appointment by the people or secular power and authority, and those who assume the same upon their own authority, are all to be regarded not as ministers of the Church but as thieves and robbers who have entered not by the door.

      Denzinger 967: If anyone says that…those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema.

    8. Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of Pope Pius XII: 1. During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, regarding those things that pertained to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff while he lived, the Sacred College of Cardinals shall have absolutely no power or jurisdiction of rendering neither a favor nor justice or of carrying out a favor or justice rendered by the deceased Pontiff; rather, let the College be obliged to reserve all these things to the future Pontiff.1 Therefore, We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope), except to the extent to which it be expressly permitted in this Our Constitution.

      3. The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them. This prohibition is especially applicable in the case of Pontifical Constitutions issued to regulate the business of the election of the Roman Pontiff. In truth, if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, We declare it, by Our Supreme Authority, to be null and void.

      The Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of Pope Pius XII supersedes anything that Pope Gregory X decided. It clearly states that the clergy cannot supply papal mandates or jurisdiction without the Pope and cannot assume the Pope’s duties.

      Given the above, how is it that the traditionalist and sedevacantist clergy without papal mandate or jurisdiction are not intruders, schismatics, and robbers who have entered not by the door?

    9. Ok, without writing enough for another post, I’ll give you the terse answer. First, I need to warn you against using ANYTHING from Theresa Benns. Why? She is manifestly incompetent. How? 1. Her error in leading 30-100 souls into Schism with an anti-pope she “elected” on the farmhouse conclave. What does this say about her powers of discernment? Her understanding? If a doctor prescribed the wrong medication to 30 patients leading to their deaths, would you continue to go to that doctor? Yet, you put yourself under House Arrest with her in matters of eternal salvation. 2. She is not (and could not) be an approved theologian or canonist. Only clerics of the highest learning qualify. It may be objected that I AM NOT A THEOLOGIAN. Yes, it’s true. However, Benns is the biggest hypocrite in the world. I have NEVER offered advice or opinions on this blog as something that is authoritative and must be followed. I’m also careful to state it’s just my opinion in a disputed matter, nothing more. Benns does EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. She “authorized” a conclave and anyone who doesn’t follow “Pope” Michael to the Sacred Henhouse is outside the Church.

      Oops! I made a little mistake! Bawden is NOT pope, but you must stay Home Alone or you’re not Catholic. I’m i the only one to see the sheer irony in her saying that Traditionalist clergy weren’t “sent” and have no jurisdiction so they can’t give you the Sacraments or tell you anything yet by what authority does SHE impose this idea on people? Who sent Benns? What jurisdiction does she possess? If she wants to stay Home Alone, that’s her choice but don’t tell others they must do the same. Otherwise she’s usurping the right to teach the faithful. Something for you to ponder. (Continued below)


    10. You challenged me to give you one example of a pre-Vatican II theologian endorsing the breaking of Canon Law during an interregnum and claimed “Epikeia is Protestantism.”

      According to Canonist Buscaren, “Epikeia is an interpretation exempting one from the law contrary to the clear words of the law and in accordance with the mind of the legislator. ...[it] is justified ,only in a particular case where (a) the strict interpretation of the law would work a great hardship...” ( See “Canon Law: A Text and Commentary”, Bruce Pub. Co. [1951], pgs. 33-34)

      I guess Fr Buscaren was a Protestant and didn’t realize it in 1951. It applies not only during an interregnum, but even when there is a hierarchy with Ordinary jurisdiction that cannot be approached quickly enough (e.g. missionary in Africa during 1950s).

      According to Canonist Schmidt, “Restrictive interpretation also included the use of epikiea, that is, the withdrawal of a particular case from the provisions of the law because of extraordinary circumstances.” (See “The Principles Of Authentic Interpretation in Canon 17 Of The Code Of Canon Law” CUA Press, [1941], pg. 203). Do you doubt we live in extraordinary circumstances? Do you think the legislator (Popes) intended for the Remnant to be without the Sacraments?

      I gave an historical example:
      Prior to Vatican II, the longest interregnum was from 11/29/1268 to 9/1/1271 (2 years and 10 months)between the death of Pope Clement IV and the election of Pope Gregory X. Several Diocesan Bishops died during this time. Ordinary jurisdiction can only be granted by the pope. However, nearby bishops consecrated a priest of the diocese to act with supplied jurisdiction until the papacy could be restored. What happened when Pope Gregory X was elected? He praised the bishops who so acted for giving the people access to Bishops and the sacraments. The bishops so consecrated, he ratified and then supplied them with Ordinary jurisdiction.

      Finally, how are Traditionalist clergy not Schismatics? How is it that a real Schismatic EO Priest can validly and licitly give the Sacraments to a dying Catholic who has no access to a Catholic priest with jurisdiction? Who sent him? Christ, the Invisible Head Of His Church gives to him deputation in an extraordinary circumstance. Why? As Canon Law itself says, “Salus Animarum Suprema Lex”—The Salvation Of Souls is the Supreme Law.


    11. Different Anon here. There is a difference of opinion between you and Benns. she says you can't approach the traditionalist clergy and backs it up and you say you can. So why such hatred for her? Is she not entitled to do exactly what you do on this blog? I also think it is significant that Pius XII the last true pope laid down the laws for interregnums. Coincidence or providence?

    12. To answer the Home Aloner above, consider also that Church law requires a priest to baptize a baby unless the baby is in danger of death. And the priest must have jurisdiction to baptize the baby, just like he needs it to say Mass and administer any other sacrament. So if we are to accept all your principles the way you state them, a Catholic family who has a baby can, according to you, never baptize their baby unless it were in danger of death. They would have to carefully stop at every stop sign and obey the speed limit to ensure the baby doesn't die in a tragic accident and be sent to Limbo forever. Even when he reached the age of reason, they still could do nothing besides teach him how to elicit his own baptism of desire and have perfect contrition for his sins. Since we have been in this crisis for many decades now, a baby born shortly after Vatican 2 would now be in middle age without ever having been baptized or absolved of his sins.

      There are canonical arguments that refute Home Aloneism that I don't have time to give right now, but just think about the scenario above and tell us if you think the law of the Church commands such a thing.

    13. @anonymous6:16
      I don’t hate Mrs Benns, I pray for her. It makes me angry when she seeks to enforce her opinion as in the case of Bawden and now claiming all must be Home Alone. As to Pope Pius XII, he did not have in mind an interregnum Of 60 years.

      Excellent example!!


    14. How does one know what the mind of the legislator was? Private interpretation, like a Protestant? The Pope is inspired by the Holy Ghost. Since God has foreseen this apostasy and eclipse of the Church out of all eternity, I think He would have had his Church make provisions for the interregnum if He had intended to maintain the Mass and the Sacraments during it. The Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of Pope Pius XII, issued right before the vacancy, does the exact opposite. I think God took away the Mass and the Sacraments specifically to punish Catholics for their laxity and sin. Catholicism survived for hundreds of years in Japan without a formal hierarchy or access to the Mass and the Sacraments. We still have the Rosary, private devotion, and the intercession of the Mother of God and the Saints.

      How were infants baptized in Japan for the hundreds of years that the Japanese did not have access to priest? Any Catholic can baptize an infant in the case of emergency, and this is certainly an emergency. I understand there is also a provision for marriage that can take place without a priest (the marriage would be affirmed if/when a priest is available). For absolution, Catholics can make acts of perfect contrition.

      We have to think this through because it is a mortal sin to miss Mass when one could go, but it is also a mortal sin to attend an invalid or schismatic mass. Based on my interpretation of the evidence, I believe the stay-at-home position is correct. Maybe I am wrong, I won’t know until the Church is restored, if it is restored before the Second Coming and the Last Judgment.

    15. @HomeAlone
      You’re in my prayers, my friend. I hope you will continue to ponder the issue and reconsider.

      How do we know the mind of the legislator? This answer is easy: No pope would want the faithful to be unnecessarily deprived of the Mass and Sacraments. Yes, there were times of persecution when staying home alone was all you could do. This was not the result of Canon Law and papal legislation, but on the inability to obtain valid clergy.

      It is also true that you can save your soul as long as you profess the Integral Catholic Faith and are in the state of sanctifying grace. However, it is much more difficult to be saved without the Sacraments and the Mass.

      God Bless,


  13. Who among Sedevacantist clergy belong to the Diocese of Rome that would allow them to elect their bishop?

    1. Good question. I wish I had an excellent answer. What I will say is that some theologians taught that if Rome were annihilated, the Imperfect Council need not be connected directly to Rome. Theologian Van Noort in 1956 discusses what could happen if the Communists wiped out Pope Pius XII, all cardinals and all Roman clergy vis a Hydrogen bomb. Then again, sedeprivationism May be proven true.


    2. 1. Roman clergy must elect a bishop of Rome
      2. No Sedevacantist that I know of has jurisdiction to any diocese.
      3. Hence they cannot elect a bishop of Rome.

      It makes no sense to say that a Sedevacantist bishop in Toledo for example, who does not have ordinary jurisdiction in Toledo, can elect a bishop of Rome.

      The only hope for the current situation is that a secret Roman bishop with ordinary jurisdiction is in Rome hiding in the woods. I think it is time to abandon the option of an imperfect council. We are left with the other two choices, 1. a miracle or 2. Sedeprivationism (which has its own problems).

    3. It is difficult to elect a popein these times, and you make sense. However, what if the Van Noort scenario took place? The Church can never hold an imperfect general council? It is not clear that Ordinary jurisdiction is necessary to elect a pope.

      We have lots of questions that need to be worked out. I would not be so fast to dismiss an imperfect general council.


    4. The supreme law is the salvation of souls. It is ridiculous to claim lack of supplied jurisdiction when souls are at stake. Remember Jesus when they accused His disciples of picking the wheat on the Sabbath. To stand by the strict canonical restrictions in this time of extremis is counter to everything Christ and the Church teaches. 'If one chooses to stay home, I have no problem at all since there is no competent authority to command attendance at Mass. But to dogmatically proclaim your position to the remnant of the Catholic world is hubris. That also goes both ways. No trad priest or bishop can command a Catholic to attend Mass on Sundays or Holy Days of Obligation. They simply do not have that authority.

    5. The Van Noort scenario implies defection of the church. If the city of Rome were nuked then the church would have ended.

      The reason sedevacantists can't elect a pope is the same reason Tom just said they can't command you to attend Mass. In Tom's own words, "they simply do not have that authority." Nobody will ever accept a sede pope because of that reason. That is why it is not ridiculous to state that ordinary jurisdiction is absolutely necessary.

    6. The Van Noort scenario in no way implies Defection of the Church. There are Theologians who do assert that an imperfect general council—under extraordinary circumstances—need not contain Roman clergy. It is a minority opinion but carries great weight. Most notable was the great Theologian Billot:

      “Well, once we grant the occurrence of such circumstances [no cardinals or Roman clergy] it is to be admitted without difficulty that the power of election would devolve upon a general council. For the natural law itself prescribes that in such cases the attribute of a superior power descends, by way of devolution, to the power immediately below insofar as it is indispensably necessary for the survival of the society and for the avoidance of the tribulations of extreme lack. “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” (Cajetan, ibidem). (See De Ecclesia Christi, and this opinion was shared by Doctor of the Church, St Alphonsus Liguori).


    7. I disagree. If the Holy See is indefectible then it can't be wiped off the face of the earth. Besides, you can't elect a bishop of Rome if Rome doesn't exist. But let's say it could for argument's sake, the above scenario discussed by Billot obviously implies that the rest of the universal church remains in standing order which includes bishops with ordinary jurisdiction throughout the world. You can't take sede clergy and suddenly grant them power to elect someone to bishop of Rome. They have no authority and their elections would always end up bogus. Nobody in their right minds would recognize a Sede elected pope because they are not authorized to function in the Church. Nobody would ever be obliged to recognize them. See Tom's comments above as to why. He's right.

    8. So Rome can’t be obliterated? Van Noort didn’t think so. I disagree with Tom. Going to Mass is a precept of the Church. It is commanded by God, not the clergy. If someone thinks they must stay Home Alone they may be inculpable in the internal forum.

      They WOULD have jurisdiction for this one act of an imperfect council in order to restore the Church to its usual order.


    9. Of course Rome can't be obliterated. If the Holy See could be wiped out then it isn't indefectible unless it first up and moved as in the Avignon papacy. But to say it is totally wiped out = defection. I think Tom's point is that the sedes per se can't impose anything on anyone. The precepts of the Church are what binds, not the sede bishops who have no authority to impose anything.

    10. @anonymous8:16
      If Rome couldn’t be obliterated, Van Noort, an eminent theologian wouldn’t be trying to come up with a solution to an impossible situation.

      On the Traditionalist bishops ability to bind I agree with what you wrote. That ordinary jurisdiction is necessary in the extreme circumstances outlined by Billot, I deny for the reason already stated.


    11. When there was authority, it was a precept of the Church to attend Mass on certain days. This precept is not Divine, it is ecclesial. Who can dispense someone who has difficulty in going to Mass on Sundays? No one, since no one has authority. What the sede clergy and bishops and even the laity have not lost is the power to designate. So sedes can hold a council and designate a new bishop of Rome. The only issue is whether he will be accepted by a significant following to act as a counter Church to the institutional false conciliar church. This is why somewhere previous, I mentioned that the SSPX needs to be onboard to lend a certain gravitas to the election. The election of a Pope has always been and continues to be primarily a political issue. God always gives authority to those who rule. This is the primary sin (after heresy) of the RR crowd, disobedience. If Bergolio is your Pope, obey him!

    12. Since I find myself in a rare disagreement with Introibo, I need to ask a question concerning Holy Days of Obligation. Since there is no Bishop to designate the yearly Holy Days of Obligation that were traditionally chanted at Mass on January 1st, how are you bound to attend Mass on Holy Days of Obligation?

    13. Tom,
      We have an obligation to worship God that is of Divine Law. The Third Commandment Orders is to “Keep Holy the Sabbath.” The greatest way to do this is by the Most Holy Sacrifice Of The Mass. Unless there is sufficient cause (as spelled out in all moral theology manuals by theologians such as Jone, Prummer, etc) we must keep Holy the Sabbath in this, the best way to worship God. I prefer to call the Holy Days Of Obligation, Holy Days Of Privledge, as Fr DePauw did. It is a privilege to stand under the unbloody Sarcifice of the Cross.

      Whatever days designated by the Bishops pre-Vatican II for your country should continue to be followed. Those Bishops did possess Ordinary jurisdiction and I can’t imagine a reason why (other than a disdain for Mass—God pity such a person) those days should not continue to bind. If a person wants to consider them non-obligatory, I leave his culpability to God in the internal forum but feel sorry for his lukewarm devotion in the external forum.

      God Bless,


    14. This is the heart of the home alone controversy. By what Authority do we operate? Depending on who you ask, you will get a different answer. We are always bound by Divine Law and are to keep Sundays holy. Of course, the best was to accomplish that it to assist at Mass. But therein lies the problem, which Mass? God will judge each one of us during this crisis in the internal forum concerning Mass attendance, since He has removed the visible Authority that governs the Church.

    15. This discussion of the possibility of Rome being annihilated reminded me of the prophecies of St. Malachy. I'm moderately skeptical of that prophecy, but it's interesting that after the last pope mentioned (De Gloria Olivae), it actually does predict the annihilation of Rome: "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations, and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills [i.e., Rome] will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The End."

      Again, I have no idea if the St. Malachy prophecies are genuine, but they have never been condemned, and if it were heretical to say that Rome could be destroyed then I think they would have been condemned as false prophecies.

    16. To answer Tom's question about Sunday Mass and the days of obligation, I think most priests would tell someone that they require the faithful to believe everything that is taught in pre-Vatican 2 catechisms. These catechisms all state that attendance at Mass is a grave obligation on Sundays and holy days, and they give a list of the holy days. If someone told the priest that he couldn't bind someone's conscience to observe this, I imagine (fortunately I've never been witness to such a conversation) the priest would simply respond that if someone does not observe these obligations as outlined in the catechism, and does not have a justifying reason for doing so, then the priest also believes what the catechism book teaches, and in this case according to the catechism the person in question is committing public, unrepented mortal sin, and therefore the priest cannot give him any sacraments. This is not because the priest is giving that person any sort of command, but simply because the catechism book informs the priest that such a person is unfit to receive the sacraments.

      This is why the vast majority of traditional Catholics do not attempt to make such an argument with their priest, even the tiny number who would believe such an idea in the first place. Because they would lose the argument with their priest very quickly. :)

    17. @anonymous1:35
      You make an excellent point!

      I agree totally!


  14. A little levity interjected into the discussion with video below:
    (Meddling Catholics - “Which One Is the Pope?”)

    1. Thanks Joann! Very funny! We shouldn’t take ourselves so seriously 24/7. We definitely need to laugh!

      God Bless,


    2. The Traditionalists can’t agree on much of anything let alone elect a Pope. If a Pope was elected there still would be infighting among the Traditionalists.

    3. @anonymous6:30
      If it were a valid election, I believe there would be enough growth and genuine signs from God, that those who rejected the new pope would be virtually nonexistent.


  15. Mass attendance is a canonical precept. It is a man made law. Laws made by men need authority to command and enforce. Keeping Holy the Lord's Day is the Divine Law. When the church had authority, it commanded the faithful to attend mass on Sundays and HDOs. Again, I ask, what living man commands you to attend Mass on Sundays? I go to Mass on Sundays to fulfill the Divine Law. If I cannot make it that week, I find another way to sanctify the day. There is no pastor with authority to dispense me from attending Mass. The mortal sin occurs when we fail to sanctify the day, not when we miss mass. There are plenty of people with legitimate reasons that miss Mass every Sunday. Missing Mass is not the sin, failure to sanctify is a mortal sin by Divine Law. When/if authority is restored, then it will be required to get dispensation from your pastor to miss Mass. Until then, there is no one to command Mass attendance.

    1. I partially agree, Tom. Ecclesiastical laws continue to bind unless excused by becoming noxious. Fast and abstinence are Ecclesiastical law. Do you eat meat on Fridays and not fast during Lent (if you’re 21-60 years old)?

      In the 1950s you didn’t need a dispensation to miss Mass if you e.g. had a severe stomach virus and vomiting. You were dispensed by the very terms of the law (See e.g. “Moral Theology” by Theologian Jone [1962]).

      Remember, also, that God was pleased with the offering of Abel but not Cain because Cain didn’t give his BEST to God. The best form of worship we can give to God is Mass. Therefore we have an obligation to attend Mass unless excused for reasonable cause of which God will be the Judge of us.


    2. Attendance at Mass on Sunday and holy days is a matter of divine law, according to the moral theologian Fr. Henry Davis, S.J. He states in his work "Moral and Pastoral Theology":

      "The obligation of worshipping God is imposed on all mankind by the Natural law. God more exactly defined how man had to fulfil it by His divine positive precept in the Old Testament. [...] It is also matter of divine positive law that man should participate in some way in the sacrifice of the New Law."

      Please note the last sentence of Fr. Davis, that participating in the sacrifice of the New Law, which is the Mass, is of divine positive law.

      This quote is from volume 2 of "Moral and Pastoral Theology" by Fr. Henry Davis, S.J., Imprimatur 1943.

    3. I strive to observe the traditional disciplines of the Church our of love of God and to honor tradition. Ecclesial laws can no longer bind unless there is a law giver. I do not see anyway around that issue. Think of the collapse of civil authority and we are thrust into anarchy. Would you still worry about speed limits, no parking zones, filing your taxes on time, and all the other laws we follow? No. We would however still follow Divine, Moral, and Natural Law. Going to Mass, fasting, and abstinence are ecclesial laws that help us fulfill the Divine Law. Following the Divine Law is what matters now. So if someone stays home alone on Sundays (I personally do not), it is up to him to sanctify the day and there is no authority to tell him otherwise. I think we have beat this one to death and will just have to hope we get a real Pope soon to solve this mess.

    4. @anonymous10:23
      Yes! This is indeed the majority opinion. I explained it in my answer above regarding giving the BEST to God. Without saying it (I should have) it is of Divine Law.

      God Bless,


  16. Teresa Benns had the courage to do something to try and help the Church whereas you talk a big game but don't do anything. You have been writing these posts for years and yet you have done nothing. You criticize and ridicule others who at least had the guts to try. What are you doing? Who have you contacted? Who are the people you think should be included in an imperfect council? Until you put your big words into action you are just another Novus Ordo news reporter like all the rest.

    1. Terms need to be defined. First, is jumping off a roof of a three story building to see if you can survive “courageous” or “really stupid”?
      “Trying to do something” when you’re clueless falls into the category of “really stupid” not “courageous.” By producing a false pope with 30-100 followers, Benns did more harm
      To souls. What am I doing? Informing people of the issues that face us during the Great Apostasy. I have privately made contact with some re: conditions for an imperfect general council. I don’t want to be brave, but cautious and correct.


    2. Fine, if you think you can do better than Benns then let us see it. For starters let us hear about your secret meetings. Why the need for privacy? What did you discuss? Who did you discuss it with? Are they going to do it or is it just talk? In 20 years will you be doing the same thing you are doing now which is news reporting? Some of your articles are good but everything you talk about has been said before countless times. Even your rock music series was done years ago by a Protestant. Same old stuff rehashed with every new pope. What good is that? Since you are so critical of Benns and others how about your solution? Why don't you, Derkson,Drolesky etc. get your acts together and do something constructive? You guys wanted the spotlight right? Now that you have it what are you going to do with it? Keep making fun of Benns and reporting on Francis? How about giving us a solid game plan? Something besides "wait for God."

    3. If someone pointed a gun at my head and asked me to pick a Pope to follow, Frankie or Michael, I would pick Michael. At least the guy is Catholic. God's ways are foolish to man's ways. We trads are not beyond the reach of pride.

    4. In that scenario,I would make a fervent Act of Contrition aloud and tell him I would forgive him if he shot me.

    5. @anonymous8:41
      The meetings aren’t secret per se, I’m anonymous and don’t want people to connect the dots to my identity. So much for my “spotlight.”
      My rock series was indeed the result of my research inspired by a Protestant friend who was a DJ as I pointed out in my first post of the series. I further researched and added, and now condense them into a post. Eric Holcomb and other Protestants have also cover such, but not from a Traditionalist point of view. I only publish those because I was asked by my readers to do so.

      I’ve already done better than Benns. I have not created an antipope. At least 5 readers have converted from reading this blog. If I do nothing else, that made all the time away from work, friends and family writing a blog which produces no money or notoriety for me.

      If you don’t like the “news reporting” don’t read my blog or NOW or Christ or Chaos. I’m alerting people to the truth and doing my small part.

      My only “game plan” is not to elect a “pope” who slops the pigs. So far it’s worked. I’ll leave the rest to those, like you, who know far better than me.


    6. anon@8:41 - Some of us are new or fairly new to Tradition. I for one am. If it wasn’t for websites such as this or NOW, I would still be out there stumbling around and thinking that the Roman Catholic Church of my youth (1950’s) was gone. I sure couldn’t find the Church in the Vatican II sect as I gave up trying to go there years ago. Most Holy Family Monastery is on the Internet spilling their heresies and there is very little left to guide folks in this time of near complete and total apostasy except for Introibo and NOW. They are doing a great work, and, if you don’t like it, why don’t you do something like a blog, or website? What is stopping you from helping people during the Great Apostacy?

    7. @Joann
      Thank you. It was for good people like you for whom I began (and continue) to write!

      God Bless,


    8. I have a question for JoAnn. Hi JoAnn, so now that you have found the true church that was missing since the 1950s, would you mind sharing with me where it is located? Also, could you tell me the names of the hierarchy in Rome? And which diocese do you belong to? Lastly, who is your bishop? Thanks.

    9. @anonymous2:05
      I'll let Joann speak for herself, but I'll tell you that you sound like the Eastern Schismatics who use these same questions to try and discredit Traditionalists.

      If you know how to read above elementary school level (and that's a BIG **IF** go back and read what theologian Dorsch said about the papacy and long interregnums. Read about the de facto 51 year old Great Wetern Schism when no one could be sure who, if anyone, was pope, and which bishops had Ordinary jurisdiction.

      Where is the True Church located? With all of us who keep the One True Faith during a time of extended interregnum as explained by Dorsch, so no hierarchy in Rome doesn't equal "there is no Rome." There can be Catholics who belong to no diocese such as the Japanese during the Great Persecution in that country. They didn't know who (or IF) there was a pope, and they belonged to no diocese or bishop. They weren't Catholic according to you.

      Finally, the Church can be found as I wrote above

      "...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."

      At the risk of sounding uncharitable, when my sincere readers are attacked by buffoons professing to be wise I get ticked off. There's an old aphorism that applies to you: "Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness made sober; but stupid lasts forever.


    10. Anon @2:05 - You never answered my question as to what you are doing to help people in this time of Great Apostasy? The “True Church” is the Truth Faith as has been handed down for 2,000 yrs. Not the ecumenical garbage that the Vatican II sect preaches. If you are an Eastern Orthodox Schismatic, your Church has adopted the same ecumenical garbage as the Vatican II sect. Since the ecumenists believe that it doesn’t matter what Church one belongs to, why do you care what I believe?

    11. The Maronites also lived in complete isolation for hundreds of years,not having communication with Rome for at least 2 centuries.
      They appointed their own Bishops and ordained Priests as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened.

  17. If anon 2:05 asked that same question to one of the 30 or so followers of "Pope" Michael, he would get an answer. Authority and hierarchy is a huge hurdle for many and I wish the trad community would get off their collective rear ends and elect a new Pope. I give Bawden some credit. Using the principal of epikea, he simply concluded that the electors did indeed possess the power to designate. And why not? Who has authority to stop him? This is why the election of a Pope will always be a political decision and not theological or canonical issue. If Bawden had the support of millions of traditionalists he would have a very valid claim to the Papacy. But as it stands now, his claim is quite bogus. It will take the numbers and organization of the SSPX, together with the sede trads to sit down and elect a new Pope. Only then will they have sufficient political clout to begin countering the false conciliar fake church.

    1. JoAnn, I already provided a big help to you. I asked questions I knew you and helicopter-mod couldn't answer. Sedevacantism has has no credibility whatsoever.

      Tom @ 10:18: I would not ask those same questions to pope michael but I would ask him a set of different questions that would be as devastating to his claims as the above questions are to any sede's.

      As far as Bawden having validity with the support of traditionalists, how would that make him bishop of Rome? Would you be the bishop of Rome if you declared yourself bishop of Rome too?

    2. @moron7:24
      Asked and answered by the theologians I cited in my response to you above. Your the one who lacks both credibility and can’t answer the theologians. What’s your solution? Eastern Schismatics? Go join Jonny Pontrello the Apostate, or answer Joanne’s questions. I noticed you still haven’t answered either of them.


    3. Anon @7:24 - You state that “Sedevacantism has no credibility whatsoever”. Where do you get your “credibility” from? Another question you more than likely won’t answer.

    4. JoAnn,

      My credibility comes from knowing more about your beliefs than you do.

      If this were a discussion forum where we could engage each other and debate specific points, I might be willing to do it. However this is a personal blog owned and moderated by Helicopter-Mod lawyer who closely controls comments, discourages inter-member dialogue, and deletes comments as he determines necessary for the "safety" of his flock. This is not the place for a real discussion on the absurdities of Sedevacantism. You will have to look elsewhere for answers.

    5. @anonymous7:37
      “My credibility comes from knowing more about your beliefs than you do.” Translation: “I cannot/ will not answer your questions or the arguments of the theologians. Instead, I’ll feign superiority in my knowledge base with nothing more to prove it than my own ipse dixit.”

      I do not discourage inter-member dialogues nor do I censor comments as your comments here proves. Do I reserve the right to interject? Of course, it’s my blog, but that doesn’t mean others can’t disagree. The only comments I delete are those that contain:
      vulgarity, profanity, blasphemous remarks and/or promote heresy. If someone is just repeating the same thing over and over, not being constructive, I will tell them I will not continue publishing their comments on that issue.

      Joann has looked to you for answers to her questions but you don’t seem to have any. Blame the blog owner for your deficiencies.


    6. Anon @7:37 - I am glad you think you know so much and that is your reason for credibility. I, however, am growing in Grace and knowledge. I asked you a total of 3 simple questions. For whatever reason you can’t or won’t answer them. Therefore, a big question mark is on your credibility which you so feign.

  18. Father Lucian (not Lucien) Pulvermacher was already a sedevacantist in the early 1980s.

    1. If you could provide a citation, I’d be very thankful for the correction. The info I used was from pages of his website I had printed out over 10 years ago, and his name was spelled that way and discussed how God “led him into the truth” that there was no pope in the mid-1990s. He was erratic, and may have changed his CV many times. Before his death he was teaching that he was the only validity baptized person in the world!


    2. I corresponded with Fr. Lucian for many years and he always signed his letters as "Fr. Lucian OFM Cap". I met him in person in 1983. He told me unequivocally that he did not accept JP2 as pope. How odd, then, that his website (which I never saw) misspelled his name and claimed he became a sedevacantist years later. I broke off contact when he became "Pius XIII".

    3. I’m glad you broke contact. The website could have been run by one of his followers, or just changed even as his bizarre ideas changed. Thank you for the information. It helps build a better picture of a troubled priest.

      God Bless,


  19. There are those who stay home merely for lack of reasonable access to the Mass, but would gladly go if they could (and maybe do on occasion as like a pilgrimage), and there are those who stay away from a reasonably accessible Catholic Mass, either for good reasons (something genuinely and gravely seriously problematical about the priest in particular), meh reasons (priest is "una cum" but the person is a sedevacantist, or vice versa), or even bad reasons (priest doesn't belong to one's preferred traditional Catholic society), but at least there is some place they acknowledge as Catholic and licit/proper to go. Then there are those who accept only as licit/proper as those who were ordained long ago, way back when they would have been given conventional diocesan faculties (or jurisdiction as a bishop) who are in serious danger, once the final one of such passes away. I cannot categorize the above sorts of Home-aloners as being heretical.
    However, there are also those home-aloners who deny that there is any place whatsoever which is licit or legitimate to go. These last have to be categorized as being heretical since what they really deny is the indefectibility of the Church. Van Noort writes, "Any society can fail in either of two ways: it can simply cease to be, or it can become unfit for the carrying out of its avowed aim through a substantial corruption. The Church cannot fail in either way." If Bergoglio's group were the Church, then it would be true that the Church has defected by becoming "unfit for the carrying out of its avowed aim through a substantial corruption." But if this final and most extreme Home-aloner position were true, then it would be true that the Church has defected by simply ceasing to be. Mere scattered lay Faithful with no authority among them or over them do not comprise a Church. Even though the Church can be without a Pope, even for a prolonged period of time, the Church cannot be without a Body of Pastors (lawful bishops) for even one moment, yet that is precisely what that final brand of Home-aloner actually claim.
    And once the last of the conventionally-appointed old timers passes away those who insist upon such come to a crossroads of having to choose between also becoming heretical or having to accept at least some of our more commonly known traditionalist clergy.

  20. The sedeprivationist (Cassiciacum) thesis is also something which requires serious reconsideration. I know it comes from a truly great and respectable mind, and is clearly the first attempt to apply theology to coming to some understanding of the current ecclesial circumstance.
    But as you noted, such a scenario has never been discussed at any time prior to Vatican II, so even the very possibility of it remains an open question. I would think it might turn upon the question: "Could a person, nominally elected as Pope, possess some, but not all, of the prerogatives of a Pope? If so, then how?" I have seen no discussions of that question among the pre-Vatican II theologians, though of course there remains much I have not yet come across. Without access to any such consideration among real and undoubted experts, the whole scenario emerges as quite problematic, even though it cannot (so far as I can tell at this point) be ruled out.
    The next question is whether sedeprivationism could have ever had any application to any part of our crisis. Providing we grant the possibility of such a scenario in the first place, there certainly seems to be room for it to have applied to the reign of John XXIII and/or the first part of the reign of Paul VI. In that time period, though the man may well have been a "single point of failure," the society he led was still quite identifiably the Church, such that everyone with a right to the title of "Catholic" (excluding only those physically separated from the Church, e. g. stranded on a desert island or otherwise confined with no access to the rest of the world) are actual members thereof, baptized and on the membership rolls of some parish somewhere. I seem to recall that the book Unum Iota records an event in which John XXIII was giving a speech in Italian in which he expressed a heterodoxy, but when translated into the Latin for inclusion into the Acts of the Apostolic See, the heterodoxy was quietly removed and what was entered was entirely orthodox. If the Cassiciacum thesis is possible then this would be a good indication that it would have been the case then, for we would then have a fallible non-Pope nevertheless leading a still-indefectible Church. Therefore, granting the first, the likelihood of the second seems quite great. And of course in the days of John XXIII and the very beginning of Paul VI, there certainly remained cardinals, even a majority of them, appointed by indisputably true Popes.

  21. But the third question is this: Subject to the hypothetical possibility of that thesis being true, could it possibly be the correct status of the Church today? And for that I have to answer a categorical "No." Over the years during and since Vatican II, the society itself has clearly ceased to be the Catholic Church. It has utterly ceased to exhibit any of the marks or notes of the Church, and nearly all non-supernatural attributes as well. Simply put, they are not the Church, at all. They are in fact nothing but an organized society of heretics, and heresy is now part of their formal charter, intrinsically interwoven into the very definition of their existence as a society. They positively cannot and will not leave their heretical Modernist Novus Ordo religion, even though some few unhappily trapped therein doubtless wish that it would.
    Either they are the Church or they are not. If they are the Church then why do we stand away from them? But no, they are not the Church; they are an alien society of no ecclesial significance to the salvation of humankind.
    Since they are not the Church, why would it be up to them to provide we who are the Church with a Pope? One might as well look to the Mormons or the Southern Baptists or the Jews to give us a Pope.
    It is a doctrine that the Church is a Perfect Society. But if the Church must turn to something else, an organized society of heretics, for something essential to the Church's existence and functioning (i.e. a Pope), then the Church is not a Perfect Society, and that doctrine, maybe once true, is now false.
    I see no way for the sedeprivationist view, as applied today, to avoid being a denial of the Church's intrinsic status as a Perfect Society.

    1. @Ubipetrus
      An interesting analysis. I don’t have all the answers. I’m just putting out what options have been discussed.

      God Bless,


  22. I still don't really understand. If Bishop Sanborn, Bishop Pivarunas, and other bishops gathered for an imperfect general council, could they elect a new pope? If all the bishops gathered, they would represent the universal Church. If the bishops can do it, why they don't?

    God bless

    1. @anon5:05
      Some pertinent problems:

      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? Sedeprivationist bishops are Sedevacantists but will not participate; how does that affect things? Too many unanswered questions before you can proceed.


  23. "His "Palmarian Creed" declared Mary the "Irredeemed," for She who is without sin had no need of redemption (Pure heresy."

    As ex-Palmarian, I thought I knew the Palmarian Creed ... I had missed the thing about "irredeemed"!

    I was queezy about "six thousand years ago, in one moment divided into two moments" ... but it seemed to concur with Masoretic / Vulgate chronology (Ussher was used by Haydock for precision on Anno Mundi and BC dates for events in his comment) and St. Augustine's theory of creation in one moment and each day being a vision that the angels saw in two moments (see De Genesis ad Litteram libri XII, second half of book V, first part of book VI).

    I was even queezier about communion meaning we commune in the Blood of Mary, but "caro Christi, caro Virginis".

    I left that sect on hearing Palmarian Catechism - which I hadn't read - also contained "the Antichrist sees the world from the 4th Dimension, the Most Pure Virgin from the 8th Dimension". I had already called out that as heresy (the world has three dimensions) when learning from the same source that "Gregorio XVII" after converting from a homosexual past had committed unchastities not just with nuns, but also, [insert expletive if wanted] with monks.

    I left it on hearing this 14 month after joining - both acts at a distance, without even hearing a word of reply from them. Joined after 24th August 2001. Meaning I left them end of October or beginning of November 2002.

  24. "How someone could claim to have attempted to contact all Traditionalists in an age before computers is baffling."

    Relevant, but not over all possible solutions.

    "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"?"

    As I followed him on FB, without as yet recognising him, I saw pictures from these events, before they were taken off FB.

    It was Gaudete weekend (ordination Saturday, consecration Gaudete Sunday) of civil year 2011, already obviously Church year 2012.

    Now, what happened to Bishop Biarnesen is another question. I don't know where he went. I had a FB friend recognising Pope Michael whom I took for Bishop Biarnesen, but he wasn't. I do know, back then, one could find episcopal lineage on wikipedia articles going from Pope Michael over Biarnesen back to Duarte Costa. These were then taken away, meaning the articles where knowledge would have been filled in by wikipedia users were no longer updated, but simply done away with. A bit like the pictures on FB disappeared.

    This event is not necessary for him to be Pope, since one is Pope even before consecration, in case one is elected without previous such. It looks to me as if he and Biarnesen had been put under pressure to hide parts of the facts.

    "According to various sources, Bawden is believed to have anywhere from 30 to 100 followers worldwide."

    Sounds possible, but is irrelevant.

    "He has never held a real job,"

    Strictly irrelevant.

    "and resides on the farm with his aged mother."

    Strictly irrelevant.

    "Benns abandoned and denounced the very "pope" she helped to "elect," and is back Home Alone."

    Back when Palmarian, I had controversies with her and with the then adherent Mascarenhas, as they were his followers.

    Since then, I have seen both leave him before I became one.

    This is also strictly irrelevant.

    At a maximum, it could be God tolerates a lot of people not recognising him up to when he learns some pastoral, because I think he has some left to learn, for instance, the pope is not father confessor of each faithful, or things like giving nihil obstat are community duties to the Church, not payable duties to the author of a work. I am a victim myself of that misunderstanding.

    This is one reason my works on the web are available to print and sell for whoever so wants, at whatever selection he wants. In case of ecclesial (even heretic and schismatic) takers, they will do their nihil obstat, no doubt, I don't think it makes reading me more licit, but I don't think it makes it illicit either. The circumstances are such that rules for nihil obstat cannot be duly observed. Pope Michael claiming otherwise pretended not to have time, and therefore proved my point. If he hasn't time, that means the vetting for nihil obstat is not available, and as not available, it cannot be a duty either.

    Benns and Mascarenhas claimed he is somewhat of a ... bully. I can't totally disagree, but this is also irrelevant for his being pope or not.

    Most of my articles are not concerned with his being Pope, obviously.

    1. Hans,
      1. It is very relevant as to how you can contact all Traditionalists. It also flies in the face of what we do know about papal vacancies. It devolves upon the bishops, not upon the laity. Further, it would not take the form of a conclave as the laity never have authority to call such.

      2. The fact of Biarnesen being so surreptitious and dubious as to his orders goes to the character of Bawden. A true pope who is to restore the Church would be upfront on all matters so as to show all his sincerity and virtue. Doesn’t seem to be at work here, does it.

      3. The points you claim “irrelevant” actually are such. If God were to restore His Church, it would be with a man of strong character and very capable because THAT IS WHAT IS NEEDED. In 30 years he has produced no significant following and according to the brief film biography, has two seminarians living with him on the farm. Teresa Benns is disreputable and I've written on this point. Bawden does not have the character of a Catholic man, and there is no sign that God has blessed the work of one whom many have called “a bully.”

      He’s no pope on several counts.


    2. "1. It is very relevant as to how you can contact all Traditionalists."

      Now, suppose he was not one of the 1/2 million users of internet from 1989, this is how he might have gone about it.

      a) have as many Traditional Newspapers as possible (Veritas, FSSPX publications, etc)
      b) note names of bishops seeming traditional or who clearly belonged to the traditional movement
      c) note names of cardinals who are traditional or more or less so (it was too late for Siri, too early for Schneider)
      d) write letters to get adresses he could not get from the publications themselves
      e) use Vatican mail services to contact Curia Cardinals - when I was in Rome, the classes were adviced to use Vatican mail over Italian mail, as Vatican mail was much more reliable
      f) send the letters
      g) if getting no answers, assume that the letters had arrived and that the recipients were not interested (in his book = culpable)

      "It also flies in the face of what we do know about papal vacancies."

      It so happens, he made a very extensive study of papal elections of the past.

      "It devolves upon the bishops, not upon the laity."

      From the cardinals it devolves to the bishops. What if bishops are all either heretical (modernist) or schismatic (not interested in a papal election)? Can it ever devolve to laity, or must the Church slowly die out as Trad bishops bicker over how papacy can be restored?

      "Further, it would not take the form of a conclave as the laity never have authority to call such."

      Very possible.

      "2. The fact of Biarnesen being so surreptitious and dubious as to his orders"

      Is it a fact, now? As said, back in late 2011, early 2012, wikipedia gave episcopal lineages in several articles. These have then been suppressed, and the fact box note episcopal lineage has been suppressed from article David Bawden.

      But a note on his lineage goes to this book:
      God, Land & Freedom: The True Story of the I.C.A.B.
      Edward Jarvis Apocryphile Press, 9 janv. 2019 - 298 pages

      It seems to be about the Duarte Costa line, and in general Brazilian Catholic Church.

      "goes to the character of Bawden. A true pope who is to restore the Church would be upfront on all matters so as to show all his sincerity and virtue."

      Was St. Joseph "upfront" to Herod?

      "Doesn’t seem to be at work here, does it."

      Can persecution be the explanation?

    3. Continued: "3. The points you claim “irrelevant” actually are such."

      Irrelevant, that is, according to your grammatical construction.

      "If God were to restore His Church, it would be with a man of strong character and very capable because THAT IS WHAT IS NEEDED."

      It seems, your views on what is needed prolonged a papal vacancy which could have been ended by devolution from cardinals to bishops.

      "In 30 years he has produced no significant following"

      He is not dead yet. And God can have held him back to make him somewhat nicer as to character. I don't say "stronger" - he has, in my view a somewhat too strong character.

      " and according to the brief film biography, has two seminarians living with him on the farm."

      OK, so?

      "Teresa Benns is disreputable and I've written on this point."

      For first supporting and then withdrawing support? Where, btw?

      "Bawden does not have the character of a Catholic man,"

      I thought a Catholic man was determined on grounds like orthodoxy and being in good standing with the Church.

      "and there is no sign that God has blessed the work of one whom many have called “a bully.”"

      My point being, real popes have in fact been bullies. It is irrelevant as to considering someone a pope.

      Has God blessed the work of such and such ... probably the rationale of those "that have afflicted them, and taken away their labours." (if you know the Stabunt iusti) Certainly the rationale of some of Job's comforters. It comes down to several agreeing between them that each must look for anyone else to support first.

      The point on lay, for that matter even non-cardinal, conclave has also been raised by the claimant Boniface X (who is a Feeneyite).

    4. 1. How he could have contacted all Traditionalists.

      Do you have proof he did all that? I can tell you for a FACT that Fr DePauw never received such communication. An approved pre-Vatican 2 canonist, Fr DePauw said his ignorance was appalling. Ditto for Fr Stepanich an approved pre-V2 theologian. These men studied the issue for years, and knew what Bawden proposed was wrong.

      You might object, “Then why didn’t they do something?” The fact of the matter is that we know we are in a state of Sedevacantism. We can’t be sure exactly how to get out of it.

      Bawden made an extensive study on papal elections? I’d be interested to know what approved theologians taught that you can be elected by your mommy, your daddy, two nice neighbors and a female “theologian.” This was a “conclave” and they have no authority to call such. Never have women participated in a real conclave—-or didn’t his “extensive research” show this FACT?

      Sedeprivationism may be true. It may be Divine Intervention. So just because bishops are not doing their duty does no imply you may “skip over them” and hold a conclave. There is not one authority that says otherwise.

      The great theologians were perplexed yet Bawden has it figured out?

      Let me put it to you this way: I don’t know how to build an airplane, but I know enough science that you can’t achieve flight by flapping your arms up and down really fast. Likewise, I don’t have the solution to the Sedevacantism, but I know it’s not a farmhouse conclave.

      Moreover, Bawden once wrote that those who did not respond to him were culpable and “silence implies consent.” No. Silence implies consent ONLY WHEN THERE IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO COMMUNICATE. He had no authority to call such a conclave in the first place!

      Continued below.

    5. 2. Yes, Bawden is extremely surreptitious about old “Bp Bob.” I contacted Bawden via a pseudonym asking about him and I RECEIVED NO REPLY. I asked a friend to contact him and ask the same. NO REPLY.

      The Duarte Costa line is LOADED with problems. Those bishops accept Anglican Orders as valid. Case in point the “Charismatic Episcopal Church” founded in New York. “Bp” Bates claims to be in the Duarte Costa line. One problem. He broke away from the Anglican sect as a “priest” and was “consecrated” by a Duarte Costa bishop without being conditionally ordained a priest. He is dubious at best, as are all alleged priests and . bishops who derive orders from him. See Do we know about Biarnesen’s training, priestly orders and consecration? Do we know about those bishops before him? Too much unknown. Why did he leave? A real pope would be upfront because he needs to restore the Church; your analogy to St Joseph is therefore inapposite. Persecution? You’re not serious right? He has no job to lose and Bergoglio isn’t losing any sleep over him either. Let Bawden die a martyr. Good way to attract attention if he’s persecuted and gain followers.

      3. “My views” are that of the approved theologians and it is better to stay Catholic in Sedevacantism than produce a false pope.

      God is “holding back” showing the restored papacy because He wants Bawden to “become nicer.” After 30 years, “God” hasn’t had much luck.

      Bawden’s not dead yet. So you want us to wait another 30 years and see if God can make him nicer and prove him “pope”? Have you tried flapping your arms to fly?

      On the ridiculous position of Benns and validity of orders see:

      Bawden has no way of “training priests” as he himself is untrained. When I need a doctor I go to an MD. If you want to risk your life with an autodidact who wants to perform surgery on you—go right ahead. I’m not trusting my soul to an expelled seminarian with a high school diploma. Yes, training and education do count. Seminary professors had to be properly trained and educated.

      No. Being Catholic also means striving to live a holy life and Bawden is Also a false pope so he is not Catholic.

      If God restores His Church it will be with a St Pius V or X. Not a pathetic man living off his mother thinking his parents somehow made him “pope.”

      You publicly assailed me as “making an ass of myself.” I suggest you look into the nearest mirror to see the real donkey staring back at you.


    6. "I can tell you for a FACT that Fr DePauw never received such communication."

      Did Fr DePauw tell you whether his bishop had?

      "Bawden made an extensive study on papal elections? I’d be interested to know what approved theologians taught that you can be elected by your mommy, your daddy, two nice neighbors and a female “theologian.”"

      If someone like Siri or Schneider had responded or someone like Sanborn or ... whoever more, I'd say myself the presence of laymen would have been redundant. Especially if they had been more than one.

      He found one conclave in which laymen dominated and in which cardinals were a tiny minority, certainly not enough for a 2/3 + majority. I think it was after one of the many turns in the Western schism.

      The usual (and legal) exclusion of women is due to the usual (and legal) exclusion of laymen. This being de jure humano David Bawden and back then Theresa Benns had thought this dispensable.

      There is a requirement about how many of the voters need to vote for someone : 2/3 +. He was elected 5/6. There is no requirement about how many voters there need to be in total, that I am aware of. Even legally. If the camerlengo had called a conclave in 1939 and only 6 cardinals could have shown up, the six would have been enough.

      There is also no requirement of not being elected by near kin. His mom and dad certainly are near kin. However, the ban on nepotism concerns naming (by popes or lower) of people getting an office inferior to their own, not electing a pope.

      I would say the summing up you gave is a non-analysing bluff and you swallowed it hook line and sinker as the saying goes.

      "It may be Divine Intervention."

      Are you Palmarian or Colinist? Do you hope for sth like that in the future?

      "Sedeprivationism may be true."

      I think it was put to a straining test in "Benedict XVI" - I accepted him for a while. I hoped he had been elected after a material pope and was going to be a formal one.

      "So just because bishops are not doing their duty does no imply you may “skip over them” and hold a conclave."

      Whether it implies that or not is sth other than whether St. Robert explicitly said so or not. He did explicitly say bishops could skip over cardinals in a pinch.

      Given the state of necessity, and given that election by cardinals is not a requirement de jure divino but de jure humano, I think one can hope we do have a pope.

    7. 2) "Persecution? You’re not serious right? He has no job to lose and Bergoglio isn’t losing any sleep over him either."

      I know from when I contacted him back in 2002 or sth (back then championing Palmar de Troya) and about certain issues about Christendom, he has been in contact with the CIA.

      What if they turned against him?

      What if they, with some secret service paranoia, concluded he would be less manageable than just dealing with "Pope Benedict" and imposed silence?

      "The Duarte Costa line is LOADED with problems. Those bishops accept Anglican Orders as valid."

      Nevertheless, the Duarte Costa line has been declared illegal, but not invalid. Old Catholics have been even declared invalid.

      3) "“My views” are that of the approved theologians and it is better to stay Catholic in Sedevacantism than produce a false pope."

      There is so much to be said for approved theologians ... one of the things is, if they are approved, they can be named and cited.

      If you mean Frs DePauw and Stepanovic, the pre-Vatican II clergy is arguably part of the problem behind Vatican II (I could name the 1920 published E. Mangenot, SJ, who some years before a 1924 Calvinist proposed the Framework Theory : six days being a "literary form freely chosen and not pertaining to the Divine Inspiration", who gained a following so much that in 1947 the Pontifical Biblical Academy gave an over the top answer, which then Pius XII modified in Humani Generis, which is in itself a devious text, especially if he expected faithful to get the grit of it from theologians rather than reading the "fine print" themselves). 1955 Pius XII made a very disastrous choice of father confessor, if you are right about chronology (which I think you are, I would have misread or misrecalled sth).

      If "approved theologian" is to carry weight, let's get to St. Robert Bellarmine or the Coimbra Jesuits.

      ... as “making an ass of myself.”

      Not on this page. If I used the term on another page, link there. If you deleted it here, say so. I might just apologise if seeing the context, if it exists. Btw, seeing a donkey in the mirror may be a good omen like it refers to Brother Ass and to Puzzle the Donkey in The Last Battle.

    8. 1. Bishop Kurz died in 1973. The “bishop” of Tivoli was a Modernist to whom Father paid no attention yet they were on good terms. He received no notice from Bawden. Father would have known because he tried to convert him frequently on phone calls. Not that it makes a difference because Bawden has no authority to call a conclave.

      2. You write: The usual (and legal) exclusion of women is due to the usual (and legal) exclusion of laymen. This being de jure humano David Bawden and back then Theresa Benns had thought this dispensable.

      Reply: They are wrong on all counts (no surprise). Women were excluded because THOSE WHO CAN VOTE MUST ALSO BE ABLE TO BE ELECTED. Hence when Montini excluded octogenarians Ottaviani couldn’t participate. He couldn’t attend and vote if he couldn’t be elected. The 2/3 plus one rule was enacted by Pope Pius XII. It’s interesting to see what they believe they can and cannot dispense. On their own terms, Bawden could not be elected. Remove his mommy, Teresa Benns, and his neighbor’s wife. That leaves Bawden, his daddy, and the male neighbor. Bawden claims not to have voted for himself. But 2/3 of 3 is two, plus one means ALL THREE WOULD BE NECESSARY.

      It’s really stupid to even go that far when the two geniuses can’t even realize women cannot participate. They have no authority to call a conclave.

      3. You write: Are you Palmarian or Colinist? Do you hope for sth like that in the future?

      Reply: No, I’m not mentally unstable that I would join some crackpot like the blind, sodomite “seer” in Spain. Some theologians teach that Divine Intervention is a possible solution. However, it would be ratified publicly by something like the miracle of the sun at Fatima.

      4. You write: I think it was put to a straining test in "Benedict XVI" - I accepted him for a while. I hoped he had been elected after a material pope and was going to be a formal one.

      Reply: I believe Luciani may have proven the thesis true. One week after his election, he summoned Fr DePauw to come to Vatican City at the end of September. He was planning on making a Commission to annul Vatican II (and implied Fr would be consecrated and given the Red Hat). John Paul I realized the P2 Masonic Lodge was bad news. He also most probably renounced Modernism. Hence, he was murdered.

      5. You write: Given the state of necessity, and given that election by cardinals is not a requirement de jure divino but de jure humano, I think one can hope we do have a pope.

      Reply: There is no theologian who teaches bishops may be superseded by a “conclave” of laymen and women. There is no necessity of having a living pope on the throne at all times. Theologian O’Reilley, one of the best theologians from the Vatican Council of 1870, stated that we must not put a limit on how long God would permit an interregnum.

      Continued below

    9. 6. You write: I know from when I contacted him (Bawden) back in 2002 or sth (back then championing Palmar de Troya) and about certain issues about Christendom, he has been in contact with the CIA.

      Reply: Besides his ipse dixit, you know this is I’m sure he was in contact with the CIA. And the FBI. And space aliens. And Bigfoot. And let’s not forget Elvis.

      You write: What if they turned against him?

      What if they, (CIA) with some secret service paranoia, concluded he would be less manageable than just dealing with "Pope Benedict" and imposed silence?

      Reply: The only paranoia is that of Bawden. Do you see that all you have is his ipse dixit and your wild hypotheticals? I’ll play along and counter with my own hypothetical. What if he stood up to them and allowed himself to be martyred? Then couldn’t God bring him back to life publicly and prove he’s pope?

      7. You write: Nevertheless, the Duarte Costa line has been declared illegal, but not invalid. Old Catholics have been even declared invalid.

      Reply: That’s because there’s no pope to declare the Duarte Costa Line invalid. Much has changed since the 1950s ruling, like their acceptance of Anglican orders as valid. The Duarte Costa line is now dubious at best. Duarte Costa “bishop” Craig Bates is invalid. So too could be “Bp.” Bob, who Bawden will not discuss.

      8. You write: There is so much to be said for approved theologians ... one of the things is, if they are approved, they can be named and cited.

      Yes, read my post above. I cite Bellarmine and Des Lauriers.

      You want people to follow a man as “pope” who:

      *Has completed no formal theological training or education, yet trains “seminarians” in his farmhouse.

      * Will not answer questions as to the whereabouts of his alleged ordaining and consecrating bishop. Nor is Bob’s orders definitely valid. He also has no formal seminary training. The result? His “mass” and “sacraments” are dubious as will be any “priests” he ordains. Would a real pope leave such doubts?

      * Claims to have been visited by the CIA (dare I say “delusional”?)

      * was in a “conclave” put together by Benns, a woman who doesn’t understand the basics of theology for a valid sacrament, and had 6 members—3 of whom were women. He doesn’t even meet his own standards for validity as I demonstrated above.

      *has been “pope” for 30 years, yet has no followers more than 100 or so because he’s “persecuted” and God’s “trying to make him nicer.” Three decades isn’t long enough for God to make it work out.

      Hans, I suggest you look with greater care into the things you write. As far as the donkey is concerned, just make sure you know the difference between “your ass and your elbow.” (A time honored American idiom).