A Re-Examination
The Bawdenite Papal Claim

FromDavid Bawden (Pope Michael)
SubjectCost of Unity
DateTue, 24 Sep 2002 05:35:45 -0600
Dear Prakash,

It has come to Our attention, that an email was not answered two years ago, so We will answer it now. Some matters We are referring to Teresa Benns, who wrote most of Will the Catholic Church Survive the Twentieth Century?

PJM: However, there seems to be an apparent contradiction in your attitude. You rightly claim the principle of Ecclesia Supplet for such a lay-elected pope, but at the same time deny it to the priests and bishops who claim the same on the ground that they cannot invoke it in the absence of a pope (see pages 260-1) If that is so, how can you claim that same right, which you claim can be supplied only by the Church when it has its head?

Here is the crux of the matter. The Church supplies for the good of the faithful, but the best thing for the faithful is to have a Pope. Therefore the Church does not supply to Bishops and priests, who are failing and even refusing to submit to a Pope. They did this for 20 years, by refusing to elect a Pope. (Actually many of the Bishops and priests in question are irregular and thus forbidden to exercise their Orders, until this is removed by a Pope. In this group is Lucian Pulvermacher, who left the Novus Ordo in the mid ‘70’s, joined the Lefebvrites for a few months, and then went on his own. Also Bishop Thuc and Archbishop Lefebvre for their participation in Vatican II.)

Basically the Traditionalists have founded a whole church or actually many churches on Ecclesia Supplet. If this principle applied, then they would all be united in one church, seeking to find the Pope. And yet, they are splintered. This lack of unity is enough to show their lack of jurisdiction, which is required by Divine Law for some priestly functions.

PJM: As for what you write on pages 268 I reject that Antichrist has or will have judicial permission to reign. I believe that he will be an illegitimate & unlawful ruler - a usurper.

Although Teresa wrote this we will respond. God permitted Antichrist as a punishment, in the same way he permits sin to occur.

PJM: I do not understand the charge made against Lefebvre on page 188, the ‘Trinitarian Heresy’; I cannot see that the statement he made and the definition of this ‘heresy’ are in agreement. Perhaps it is beyond my comprehension?

This one got me for years too, but when Teresa put it into the book, it finally made sense. Lefebvre, in Our opinion, is a tool of The Enemy of the Church, in league with the Anti-Popes in Rome.

PJM: Regarding your remarks on page 272 about the Kings of England & Scotland - I believe that the Jacobite (Stuart) and not the reigning Rupertine (Hanover) pretenders are the legitimate kings. I grieve that the Catholic Stewarts, who suffered so much for the faith, are dismissed so cavalierly and the Protestant Rupertine pretenders and usurpers accepted so thoughtlessly.

Teresa put this in and We have no position on the subject. Therefore We refer it to her.

PJM: Regarding the statement made on page 301 that the default of Electoral College goes from the College of Cardinals to St. John Lateran, etc.; the reference is not clear. What is ST. JOHN LATERAN? And who are the others to whom the right devolves in default? There must be such a list…

As the Pope’s Basilica or Cathedral in Rome, the Canons of Saint John Lateran, according to some authors, would have the right next after the Cardinals. No list has ever been assembled as to who comes next, because the problem has only arisen at the time of the Western Schism and the true Pope designated the Council of Constance to elect, and then resigned.

PJM: The quotation on page 312 of Pope Pius 12 that a lay electee becomes pope fully upon acceptance, attributed to a document styled "LAY APOSTOLATE" … what is that? We must be shown this text and its genuineness.

Teresa placed this in, so We will ask her to look for the document. However, this proposition is supported by both history and Papal Election Law.

It should be contrasted to the Code of Canon Law of the Vatican II Church, which states that a man does not become an Ordinary or Pope, until after he is consecrated Bishop, which is a direct contradiction to the common and constant practice of the Church.

The Roman Pontiff legitimately elected obtains, from the moment he accepts election, the full power of supreme jurisdiction by divine right., (Canon 219).

In Pope Pius XII’s decree Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis: The moment he accepts, he is the true Pope and obtains and may exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world.

Several Popes were never consecrated Bishop as history shows, although they exercised their Papal authority.

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.

This does not apply to a heretic, as Saint Robert Bellarmine observes, how can a man be head of the Church of which he is not a member.

Pope Paul IV in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio also stated this: 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: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless..."
PJM: Perhaps the greatest difficulties I have are on the issue of Papal Indefectibility and on the status of the Roman Church in the Universal Church You quote St. Francis of Sales in favor of Papal Indefectibility (on page 293) but far more theologians, doctors, etc. believed otherwise. I give you particularly Cajetan & Bellarmine. …

This is probably the biggest controversy of our time.

The Primatial See can be judged by no one. (Canon 1556)

The Vatican Council (DZ 1830) states: That the judgement of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed, is to be disclaimed by no one, nor is anyone permitted to pass judgment on its judgment.

Reference is made to Pope Saint Nicolas I epistle (DZ 330): “The first seat will not be judged by anyone.” (year 865)

Pope Saint Peo IX states (DZ 353): … 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.” But, if the Pope can become a heretic, then he can be judged.

Note well that prior to the Vatican Council this theory was put forth, but what Mr. Perlant put forward was the proposition that Saint Robert Bellarmine held it as an opinion that a Pope cannot become a heretic and further that never in history has a Pope become a heretic.

The Vatican Council also declared (DZ 1836): … knowing full well that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour made to the chief of His disciples: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” (Juke 22:32)

This for Us, shuts the door and settles the matter.

And so what are we to say of those who still hold that a Pope can become a heretic after the Vatican Council?

We believe that they are heretics, weakening the Church. This does not destroy free will, only limits the Pope to committing all mortal sins but heresy or apostasy.

In any case it can be proven that Angelo Roncalli was not papabile, being a heretic prior to his attempted election in 1958, so this point is not important. (The same can be said of Montini, Luciani and Wojtyla.)

PJM: Further, I would not dismiss the prophecies of a Holy Emperor to come as anti-Christian Myths. Certainly, in opposition to our Christian prophecies, there are mirror image antiprophecies of what would be the antithesis of our expected Emperor. But then in the same manner, there are antitheses of the Messiah himself!

This We will refere to Teresa Benns, who has done the research on this matter.

PJM: As for the Whore of Babylon… SHE is not Rome; could be Anti-Rome…

This is indeed true, Anti-Rome, the usurper is the Whore of Babylon.

PJM: I must warn you against the tendency to give out statements as the certain interpretations of prophecies and or fables, especially fables, as being rash and leading unto ruin.

Please specify which statements.

PJM: Regarding your positioning of your homeland - the USA as the site of the New Jerusalem, or the new seat of the Papacy, I must warn you to desist, to not allow yourself to be carried over by nationalistic myth-romances.

I consider that the USA & UKGB (England & its Scotch, Welsh, etc. colonies) are the New SODOM & GOMORRAH.

The USA is deliberately patterned on the Roman Empire, without HOWEVER the benefit of the True Faith; and was established by known freemasons, not excluding George Washington; that England and USA took advantages of the disturbance caused by Napoleon to breakout Latin America first from the hands of Spain & Portugal and finally from the hand of the Church.

The problems with the United States are immense. However, there is one distinction to be made. Whereas France, Italy, England, etc. have all apostatized, the United States has not, because it never had the Faith in the first place. In fact, the first Bishop in the United States, John Carroll is quite suspect.

In fact, you only give part of the story. The Constitution of the United States is invalid, because the Constitutional Convention changed the required vote from unanimous to majority on a majority vote. (If all had agreed to change, then it would have been valid.) In any case, as bad as it is, the Constitution is no longer truly enforced in the United States. Where We reside is in the Louisiana Purchase which is invalid on two bases. First, the President who bought it did not have authority to do so. (Often Presidents do something, then ask Congress to make it legal after the fact.) Secondly, France could not sell it, because they bought on the condition they would not sell it and never paid for it. Many other things can be pointed out about the evils of the United States.

However, the state of Our own diocese in Rome is also quite bad. We look forward to some day ending Our exile and beginning the work required to restore Our diocese.

PJM: Finally, I will remind you that the Eagles of USA & Mexico are anti-Catholic symbols.

We know about this, but maybe God is trying to tell us that good will come from an evil place. (By the way the United States had a hand in giving Mexico to the Masons, as well as stealing a large part of it.)

PJM: Finally, the book is incomplete in that it does not provide information of the events leading to and of the actual ‘election’ itself.

The book was written to call an election, as well as to fight the many heresies running rampant today. Therefore the details after its publication could not be included. After it was published, over 100 pages of Election Update were issued. Copies were sent to every sede vacantist listed in Radko Jansky’s directory of Traditionalists, except those Teresa or Ourself knew for certain to be heretics. (This was a small number.) People like Bateman and Pulvermacher had copies prior to the election. Shortly before the election, a summons was issued and sent to many, who had shown even slight interest in a papal election.

PJM: While I ask the question of Authority for the ‘Conclave;’ you stress the question of Jurisdiction, which was peripheral to my thought… Again, on page 98 fl. you posit that a Mis-acting Conclave loses the right to elect again… On page 226 you posit that there is prohibition against publishing without one’s ordinary’s leave… (Canon 1384.1)

Jurisdiction is a key to understanding the current situation. The Pope is the source of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. Traditionalist Bishops and priests do not possess it and according to something We just received (mailto:winkelkim@msn.com?subject=olomc 9-18-02 copy request or We can send you a copy) they readily admit it. This being said, they are now obligated to find the Pope (or if one cannot be found, elect one), who can give them the required jurisdiction.

PJM: Regarding the controversy about women speaking, preaching, teaching etc., I wish to draw your attention that while this is taught in the Bible, there is, however, a crucial distinction: this prohibition is against women doing so IN CHURCH, and not outside, no more than is a woman required to veil outside Church.

See Acts 21: 9 where we are told of the four daughters of St. Phillip the Evangelist, all prophetesses.

Evidently then, there was no problem either to God or to St. Paul to see prophetesses…

Teresa included this, because she has taken many hits in the past for being a woman, yet daring to write or speak on the truths of the Faith. Your point backs up her and Our own, that women not only can, but must speak out, especially in trying times like these.

We look forward to your comments, and hope to get to everything. If We fail, please ask again.

Pope Michael
FromTeresa Benns
SubjectCost of Unity
DateMon, 23 Sep 2002 15:27:44 EDT
Dear Mr. Prakash,

Thank you for your gracious response. Please allow me a few days to gather some information for you as my busiest days at work are Monday through Wednesday. I have forwarded your e-mail to Pope Michael, who will answer some of the questions that fall within his domain. Thank you for your patience.

Yours in Christ,

Teresa L. Benns