From "Pope Michael" <>
To "mascarenhas prakash john" <>
Sub Problems with Pius XII
Date Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:06:18 -0600
Dear Friends,

Here is my commentary on the problem of Pope Pius XII

Pope Michael


There has been much controversy about some of the decisions of Pope Pius XII. Some think that some of Pope Pius XII's decisions paved the way for Vatican II. However, we must look at this matter VERY CAREFULLY. Although many claim to be using Epikeia to justify their actions, in fact they are JUDGING THE LAW. So let us lay the ground rules. We are obliged under pain of serious sin to obey the Roman Pontiff, even if we consider his decisions to be imprudent or even outright wrong. Unless he were to command something sinful, we are obliged to obey, until another Pope reverses the decision. To judge the law is beyond our competence and is not a proper use of epikeia, as Saint Thomas and others teach. To judge the law is reserved EXCLUSIVELY to the Pope. For anyone else to attempt to do this is to usurp papal authority and thus excommunicate oneself for this crime.

We should remember that Pope Pius XII fought the move towards Vatican II and was surrounded by enemies. The Tondi affair and Montini (later Anti-pope Paul VI) should be familiar to all. Volumes could be written on the efforts to subvert the Church in the 1940's and 1950's. In fact the problem goes back to the beginning of the 20th century, when Pope Pius X wrote that the enemy is already within the Church! Let us never forget that the problems began far earlier. Many of the books we have saved are from this time period and several are tainted with heresy, although they bear the imprimatur.

Patriarchs, Archbishops and other Hierarchs (Ordinaries) should zealously care for the faithful protection of and the accurate observance of their rite, nor are they to permit or to tolerate any change in the rite. This Canon (1, paragraph 2) of the Oriental Code of Canon Law was extended to the Universal Church on June 2, 1957 by Pope Pius XII. So his abhorrence of the Vatican II tendencies should be quite clear.


Many appeal to epikeia to justify their actions. However, these same people pass the! limits in setting aside the laws we are about to discuss. It would be judging a law to say that it was not well made; but to say that the letter of the law is not to be observed in some particular case is passing judgment not on the law, but on some particular contingency. (II-II Q120 A1, Reply 1) I will not discuss the majority of epikeia here, but would like to point out that we are not permitted to judge the law itself. We can judge whether or not a law actually exists. For instance, we judge that all of the laws of Angelo Roncalli, Giovanni Montini and Karol Wojtyla are invalid, because none of these three were lawmakers, that is they were not popes. We are not judging the law or even the pope, but whether or not these men became pope and could pass laws.

In the third reply, Saint Thomas states: Interpretation is admissible in doubtful cases where it is not allowed to set aside the letter of the law without the interpretation of the sovereign. But when the case is manifest there is need, not of interpretation, but of execution.


The first change was a retranslation of the Psalms. From what I can find out, this was tolerated, not ordered. Therefore we can reject the retranslation. In fact all who reject the Novus Ordo in any way, shape and form, also reject this retranslation. It is my opinion that this was run through by underlings and tolerated by Pope Pius XII in 1945. Eventually this toleration, in my opinion, will be reversed. And so we can reject the whole thing, if we wish, as it was only permitted not ordered. However, those clergy who were raised with this Psalter may continue to use it, until the contrary is ordered by the Pope.


"When all this was referred to His Holiness … His Holiness deigned to approve the following arrangement of the Rubrics and ordered that it be published with the understanding that the provisions of this Decree are to go into effect on the first of January, 1956."

On March 23, 1955, the Calendar was changed, with effect from first January, 1956. However, sede vacantists for the most part reject this change, although it was ordered to be implemented by the Pope. There are two possibilities.

Either Eugenio Pacelli wasn't Pope, and we must reject everything he did, or in rejecting his orders we are judging the law and exceeding our competence. No proof that Pacelli was not Pope has been produced. (Those who argue that he fell into heresy and from the Papacy, deny the doctrine of the church that a Pope cannot fall into public heresy and thus leave the Papacy and the church simultaneously. Either he never was Pope or he was Pope, there is no middle ground.)

Anyone who rejects this calendar is committing a serious sin of disobedience to the last legitimate Pontiff prior to the Great Apostasy. And most, if not all, sede vacantists commit this mortal sin of disobedience and judging the law.

No argument in this matter can be admitted. It may appear that this calendar change paved the way for Roncalli's change five years later, but even if this is true, we cannot reject this change. Pope Saint Pius X not only changed the calendar, but also the Breviarum Romanum. The calendar is subject to change. To reject ANY CHANGE by Pope Pius XII, whether this calendar or the insertion of feasts is a mortal sin of disobedience. Any cleric who commits this sin must be considered schismatic in that he rejects a lawful order of the Pope.


"Hence, by special mandate of the same Pope Pius XII, the Sacred Congregation of Rites has decreed the following:… "

Then follows the restoration of Holy Week, which radically changed the rite of Holy Week. He moved the Masses to the evenings on all three days of the Sacred Triduum, using the permission for Evening Masses, he had permitted previously. This also makes use of the changes in the fast laws Pope Pius XII also passed to facilitate evening Masses. It is interesting that Traditionalists accept evening Masses, but many reject the Holy Week changes.

One argument against the Novus Ordo is the theory that a Pope cannot institute a new rite for the celebration of Mass. However, we know that Montini wasn't Pope, so this argument is invalid. The Pope, as protector of the Rites of the Church, could theoretically institute a new rite. However, such a radical change would not be instituted.

These changes however, were also ORDERED, and we are not permitted to judge the law, as only a Pope is competent to do so. Therefore we are obliged under obedience and pain of mortal sin, to accept AND USE these rites, no matter what our personal opinion may be. It is also schismatic to reject these changes, which were ordered by the Pope.


"How can a man be head of a Church he is not a member of?" asked Saint Robert Bellarmine. Pope Paul IV's Bull, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio provides that a heretic cannot become Pope, answering Saint Robert Bellarmine's question.

Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum states: Heresies and schisms have no other origin than that obedience is refused to the priest of God, and that men lose sight of the fact that there is one judge in the place of Christ in this world" (Epist. xii. ad Cornelium, n. 5). No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church. Wherefore Optatus of Milevis blamed the Donatists for this reason: "Against which ages (of hell) we read that Peter received the saving keys, that is to say, our prince, to whom it was said by Christ: 'To thee will I give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the gates of hell shall not conquer them.' Whence is it therefore that you strive to obtain for yourselves the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven-you who fight against the chair of Peter?"

Paul IV, Cum Ex: 6. In addition that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
  1. the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and gained the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

  2. it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or veneration, or obedience accorded to such all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation

  3. it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

  4. to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain

  5. each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
We must conclude that a heretic cannot become Pope, but can a Pope become a heretic?


The Vatican Council in 1870 infallibly declared: And indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the LORD our SAVIOUR made to the Prince of His disciples: "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren." (Luke 22:32) (DZ 1836)

Saint Leo IX on September 2, 1053 states (DZ 351): Chap. 7 "The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter or Cephas, the son of John who first was called Simon, because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome; thus Truth itself promises, through whom are true, whatsoever things are true: "The gates of hell will not prevail against it".

"The same Son declares that He obtained the effect of this promise from the Father by prayers, by saying to Peter: "Simon, behold Satan etc." [Luke 23:31]. Therefore, will there be anyone so foolish as to dare to regard His prayer as in anyway vain whose being willing is being able?

"By the See of the chief of the Apostles, namely by the Roman Church, through the same Peter, as well as through his successors, have not the comments of all the heretics been disapproved, rejected, and overcome, and the hearts of the brethren in the faith of Peter which so far neither has failed, nor up to the end will fail, been strengthened? …
(DZ 353) Chap. 32 As the hinge while remaining immovable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because "the highest See is judged by no one."

Pope Pius IX also infallibly condemned the error: The Roman Pontiffs and the Ecumenical Councils have trespassed the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals. (DZ 1723)

Benedict XV, page 270-1: First Cardinal Giorgi read the profession of Faith formulated by the Tridentine and Vatican Councils. The Pope's rochet, pectoral cross, and stole were put over his night clothes, but he was too weak to sit up and read the formula. Therefore, it was read a few words at a time, and the dying Pope repeated it. What the ritual demands is that the dying pontiff with what is almost his last breath prove that he holds securely to the deposit of Faith of which he was the supreme guardian.

Satis Cognitum states; And since all Christians must be closely united in the communion of one immutable faith, Christ the Lord, in virtue of His prayers, obtained for Peter that in the fulfilment of his office he should never fall away from the faith. "But I have asked for thee that thy faith fail not" (Luke xxii., 32), and He furthermore commanded him to impart light and strength to his brethren as often as the need should arise: "Confirm thy brethren" (Ibid.). He willed then that he whom He had designated as the foundation of the Church should be the defense of its faith. "Could not Christ who confided to him the Kingdom by His own authority have strengthened the faith of one whom He designated a rock to show the foundation of the Church?" (S. Ambrosius, De Fide, lib. iv., n. 56). For this reason Jesus Christ willed that Peter should participate in certain names, signs of great things which properly belong to Himself alone: in order that identity of titles should show identity of power. So He who is Himself "the chief corner-stone in whom all the building being framed together, groweth up in a holy temple in the Lord" (Eph. ii., 21), placed Peter as it were a stone to support the Church. "When he heard 'thou art a rock,' he was ennobled by the announcement. Although he is a rock, not as Christ is a rock, but as Peter is a rock. For Christ is by His very being an immovable rock; Peter only through this rock. Christ imparts His gifts, and is not exhausted....He is a priest, and makes priests. He is a rock, and constitutes a rock" (Hom. de Poenitentia, n. 4 in Appendice opp. S. Basilii). He who is the King of His Church, "Who hath the key of David, who openeth and no man shutteth, who shutteth and no man openeth (Apoc. iii., 7), having delivered the keys to Peter declared him Prince of the Christian commonwealth. So, too, He, the Great Shepherd, who calls Himself "the Good Shepherd," constituted Peter the pastor "of His lambs and sheep. Feed My lambs, feed My Sheep." Wherefore Chrysostom says: "He was preeminent among the Apostles: He was the mouthpiece of the Apostles and the head of the Apostolic the same time showing him that henceforth he ought to have confidence, and as it were blotting out his denial, He commits to him the government of his brethren....He saith to him: 'If thou lovest Me, be over my brethren.' Finally He who confirms in "every good work and word" (2 Thess. ii., 16) commands Peter "to confirm his brethren."

"For the pronouncement of Our Lord Jesus Christ saying: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' &c., cannot be passed over. What is said is proved by the result, because Catholic faith has always been preserved without stain in the Apostolic See"

Canon 188, paragraph 4 cannot be applied to the Pope, because he cannot become a heretic.


The sovereign is said to be 'exempt form the law', as to its coercive power, since, properly speaking, no man is coerced by himself, and law has no coercive power save from the authority of the sovereign. Thus then is the sovereign said to be exempt from the law, because none is competent to pass sentence upon him if he acts against the law. … (I-II, Q96, A5)

"The Primatial See can be judged by no one." Canon 1556. This is a restatement of the Vatican Council (1870) in DZ 1830, which refers to DZ330: "The first seat will not be judged by anyone.", Saint Nicolas I to Michael the Emperor, 865.

Saint Leo IX on September 2, 1053 states (Chap. 32) ". . . As the hinge while remaining immovable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because "the highest See is judged by no one." (DZ 353)

Although we cannot judge a Pope, we are allowed to judge whether or not a person was validly elected Pope.

Some may object that Saint Alphonsus states: "It doesn't matter that in past centuries some pontiff has been elected by fraud: it suffices that he has been accepted after as pope by all the Church, for this fact he has become true pontiff." Saint Alphonsus is following the basic principle that no matter how faulty the election, if a man is considered as Pope, he is Pope, provided he was capable of being elected in the first place. Now a heretic cannot become Pope, because how can one become head of the Church, when he is not a member of the Church? Now heretics are manifestly outside of the church. However, Cum Ex infallibly states that a heretic cannot become Pope or have any position in the Church. What Saint Alphonsus is referring to is the principle that no other crime prevents a man from becoming Pope.


The faithful are bound to profess their faith publicly, whenever silence, subterfuge, or their manner of acting would otherwise entail an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, an insult to God, or scandal to their neighbor. Any baptized person who, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by the divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic; if he abandons the Christian faith entirely, he is called an apostate; if, finally, he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or to have communication with the members of the church subject to the Pope, he is a schismatic." …, Canon 1325

By refusing to be subject to the Pope, even if he is long dead, we become schismatic. This crime removes us from the Church, as Pope Pius XII infallibly declares in Mystici Corporis Christi, paragraph 22: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed." In the next paragraph he stated: "For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. " By including all three it can be concluded that Pope Pius XII settled the question on schism, and schism as well as heresy and apostasy severs a man from the Church, therefore removing him ipso facto (automatically) from office.

Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum states: "Heresies and schisms have no other origin than that obedience is refused to the priest of God, and that men lose sight of the fact that there is one judge in the place of Christ in this world" (Epist. xii. ad Cornelium, n. 5). No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church. Wherefore Optatus of Milevis blamed the Donatists for this reason: "Against which ages (of hell) we read that Peter received the saving keys, that is to say, our prince, to whom it was said by Christ: 'To thee will I give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the gates of hell shall not conquer them.' Whence is it therefore that you strive to obtain for yourselves the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven-you who fight against the chair of Peter?"

To refuse to obey the law is an act of schism. As we saw above the question is not of our interpretation, but of our execution of the law. Only a Pope can judge these laws or repeal them. If we presume to do so our own authority, then we usurp the Papacy by our actions, which is an act of schism. This by itself removes us from the Catholic church into our own Church. Just as the Lefebvrites have their own church, we have instituted our own by judging the law, which is beyond our competence.


When we defect from the Church by heresy, apostasy and/or schism, we are immediately excommunicated, lose all rights in the Church and become irregular. Canon 985 states: "The following are irregular from crime: 1. Apostates from the faith, heretics and schismatics." Canon 986 states: "These offenses do not cause irregularity unless they are mortal sins, committed after Baptism, and unless they are external, whether public or occult."

Remember the presumption of law is that if the action is performed, one does so knowingly until the contrary is proven. This proof can only be presented in the Papal Court, therefore we cannot presume our ignorance and innocence, but must submit to the Pope. This is one proof of the necessity of the Papacy, since we must appeal to the Pope for the removal of the censures we may have incurred. Until this is possible, we are bound under pain of mortal sin to cease all of our functions in the Church, especially the administration of the Sacraments. (An exception would be made for Private Baptism without the accompanying ceremonies, marriage, because of the natural right to marry and possibly absolution in danger of death.)


Irregularity is not a censure, but a state that comes from thing that render one unfit to be ordained or to exercise Holy Orders. There are two kinds of irregularity, by crime and by defect. Those who are irregular are barred from Holy Orders, because they are considered unfit, not because they are necessarily sinners. For instance, a man, who has been legitimately married twice is considered irregular, although there is no sin involved. The Church requires more in her clergy, because they assume the responsibility of administering the Sacraments, which must be treated in a holy manner.

Anyone, who ever celebrated the Novus Ordo became irregular. Anyone, who accepted Paul VI as a legitimate Pope as did Lefebvre and Thuc, became irregular for schism. Ignorance is no excuse, especially in the case of Bishops, who are required by the Divine Law to know better. They should have known that Paul VI was an heretical anti-pope, since they were both in Rome and attended Vatican II. Lefebvre admits to signing the heretical decree on the liturgy, and we must presume Thuc did as well, because he never claimed to have refused to sign. (Only 4 bishops voted against the Decree on the Liturgy.)

Basically, until a Pope removes the irregularity (and only a Pope may do so) each and every Bishop and priest must cease to function as such, because of this irregularity. (There are priests and Bishops behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains, who have not incurred these irregularities, since they are completely ignorant of Vatican II or, if they know if it, they reject it and thus are not irregular, but in the free world all baptized people have become slaves to irregularity. If there is a man, who was baptized outside the Vatican II Church, he is irregular for illegitimate ordination outside the laws of the Church and probably for rejecting the laws above.)


As I pointed out above Epikeia is for use in particular cases. We had one with the usurpation of the Papacy by Angelo Roncalli and his heretical anti-Christian successors. In the mean time, all of us became irregular for our participation in the Novus Ordo religion, although we were ignorant. Some of us withdrew from this religion and did all we could to return to the Church, but were unable to have our irregularity and excommunication removed. So we proceeded to call for and hold a Papal Election on July 16, 1990, and elected a Pope, who could remove the irregularity and excommunication. We applied Epikeia to this one case, and elected a Pope.

Others have also proceeded similarly and thus confusion arose. Of course, Lucian Pulvermacher must be rejected, because of his heresies. Linus II should also be rejected, because he knew of Our election as Pope and did not do anything about it.

(A man becomes an anti-pope by being elected while a legitimate pope reigns. Therefore one must first prove that there is no legitimate claimant as we did. Therefore all of the Gregorys XVII are rejected, since they were appointed by some alleged apparition or in the case of Siri never claimed to be pope in the first place. Others were similarly ruled out.)

We also reject Pius XIV (Fr. Robert Zhong, S.J., Republic of China), although We believe that his people proceeded in good faith. Gordon Bateman and the Mildenhalls have called for an imperfect council to solve these problems, because of the confusion. Such a council would consist of the laity and of irregular clergy, who could only proceed to the solution of the papal problem, while acting as lay people in all other matters, since their ordination is at best doubtfully legitimate.

Blessed Pope Innocent XI condemned the opinion: "It is not illicit in conferring the sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned, unless the law forbids it, convention or the danger of incurring grave harm. Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders." Now the opinion that epikeia allows irregular clergy to confer the Sacraments is at best only probable, since a probable opinion can be presented that they may not licitly (and therefore fruitfully) do so may also be presented. To allow such clergy to proceed without submitting to a Pope is to follow the moral system of Laxism, from which the above opinion is taken. And in this day of utter laxity, Catholics cannot be lax! We must be zealous defenders of the Laws of God and His holy Church!


The laity has the right to receive from the clergy the spiritual goods and especially the necessary means of salvation, according to the rules of ecclesiastical discipline. (Canon 682) Our right is limited and governed by the Code of Canon Law, as well as the rubrics. Pope Benedict XV, when promulgating the Code of Canon Law called it written reason. To reject the Code of Canon Law is to reject the Church, because the Catholic Church is governed by the Code of Canon Law. This alone would be a schismatic act, if it leads to founding a new church as has happened with some groups. In essence they have founded new churches based upon their theory of how they may operate without a Pope. Some have decided that Karol Wojtyla has come claim to the Papacy, and therefore they may operate, while rejecting his authority in their own regard. By accepting that a heretic can have any possible claim to the Papacy is an heretical rejection of the infallible teaching of CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO. Others have declared that Karol Wojtyla in an anti-Pope, but have not done anything to elect a Pope. This is at least schismatic in practice, because they are refusing to submit to a Pope. Also it is probably heretical.


The infallible Decree, Unam Sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII declares this to be true. (DZ 469) Further the Vatican Council (DZ 1825) declares: "If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of the blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema!" So to reject that a Pope is necessary is heretical. In fact all clergy are required to renounce this heresy in the Oath Against the errors of Modernism: "Thirdly, likewise, with a firm faith I believe that the Church, guardian and mistress of the revealed word, was instituted proximately and directly by the true and historical Christ Himself, while he sojourned among us, and that the same was built upon Peter, the chief of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors until the end of time." (DZ 2145) And so anyone who declares that it is not necessary to have a Pope is a heretic. Further, anyone who acts as if it is not necessary to have a Pope is a heretic.

"Wherefore, if any should presume to think in their hearts otherwise that as it has been defined by Us, which God avert, let them know and understand that they are condemned by their own judgment; that they have suffered shipwreck in regard to faith, and have revolted from the unity of the Church; …" From the infallible Bull, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854.

This applies not only to the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, but to all defined dogmas without exception.

Pope Pius XII used similar words in defining the dogma of the Assumption in the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, November 1, 1950: "Therefore, if anyone, which may God forbid, should dare either to deny this, or voluntarily call into doubt what has been defined by Us, he should realize that he has cut himself off entirely from the divine and Catholic faith."

Ineffabilis Deus continues: "and what is more, that by their own act they subject themselves to the penalties established by law, if, what they think in their heart, they should dare to signify by word or writing or any other external means." Pope Pius IX is referring to the Canons of the Church, which prescribe various results of heresy. One can commit the sin of heresy without incurring the results, if they remain silent about their heresy. However, if they make their heresy known by any external means, such as refusing to genuflect before our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, they then incur the effects of heresy, as prescribed by law. This external manifestation of heresy is the crime of heresy.


The logical conclusion is that all should submit to Us, Pope Michael, as the legitimate Roman Pontiff. The reason We consider Our claim as valid is:

1. Teresa Benns and Ourself wrote and circulated articles and finally a book to call for an election, and circulated same to all sede vacantists in the world, that we knew of.

2. We called for the election in accord with the proper interpretation as demonstrated in the book.

3. We proved that there was no valid claimant to the Papacy at the time the election was held.

4. Therefore, we held an election on July 16, 1990, electing David Allen Bawden as Pope.


Subsequent to Our election as Pope, three other elections have been held, as indicated above. We believe that the participants in the elections of Linus II and Pius XIV proceeded in good faith, although in the former case, they were able to know of Our election and therefore proceeded illegitimately. In the case of Pius XIV, they proceeded in good faith, although invalidly. However, because of the confusion, the precedent followed by Pope Gregory XII should be followed, all claimants resigning in favor of a new election conducted by Catholics. Until such time, all clergy should discontinue their function, until the Pope so elected can absolve them from any excommunications they may have incurred and remove the irregularities they have certainly incurred.

It is absolutely essential that we follow the safe course and proceed with all due haste to solving the current confusion. Not only is this necessary for the Church, our own salvation depends on it, for to proceed in any other matter is to commit a serious sin of neglect. This may be a hard saying, but refusing to accept a hard saying can bring about a person's damnation.

For the Unity of the Church:
David Allen Bawden, known as Pope Michael
August 30, 2002, Saint Rose of Lima.

My reply