Letter To David Bawden

FromPrakash Mascarenhas
Sent04 November 2000 7:15 PM
SubWill the Catholic Church Survive...

Dear Sir, - I am in the Receipt of the book, ‘Will the Catholic Church Survive the 20th Century?’ which you sent to me some days back. I have just finished reading it; it is a difficult book, and I shall have to go over it once again, this time making careful notes as I go along…

Your book posits many things that I can neither affirm nor reject since I am wholly ignorant of the reference texts - principally the Codex of 1917 & the Summa of St. Thomas of Aquinas… However I have taken some notes; and these are my preliminary reactions:

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)

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…

In defense of a lay election you have invoked the principle of Ecclesia Supplet… I then remembered that there were popes who were elected by the Emperors. (See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11456a.htm; "It must be admitted that the Holy Roman emperors sometimes made use of their overwhelming power unscrupulously, and more than once candidates were elected to the papacy by direct imperial nomination. Otto III is credited with the nomination of Gregory V and Sylvester II, and Henry III with the effectual naming of Clement II, Damasus II, Leo IX, and Victor II") It is of such popes, perhaps, that this remark was made. I can now see that if it was supplied to these, when these were abuses, how much more can we claim this right to be SUPPLIED by the Church when we take on ourselves the default right to elect a pope…

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?

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.

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?

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. 1

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…

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.

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.

Both believed it possible (as does the Catholic Encyclopedia; and that is part of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium of the Church) that a pope could become a heretic. Cajetan held that he would need to be deposed, while Bellarmine believed that he was automatically deposed (The papa deponendus vs. papa depositus controversy in the Catholic Resistance reflects that)

I, too, basing myself on Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, believe that a man even after his election retains his FREE WILL and so can certainly adopt heresy… I believe that the posited doctrine of Papal Indefectibility is a heresy; that it contradicts the certain Doctrine of the Free Will of all souls…

Further, it is my understanding that the Catholic Church has always taught that the Roman Church will never fail, even if many or most of its members fall away, and that the succession of St. Peter’s primacy will always be vested in the Pontiff of Rome, and that the seat of the Successor of St. Peter in his primacy will always be Rome, even if the pope be in exile.

I further understand that the Council of the Vatican (1870) in the Document PASTOR AETERNAS treats of Roman Indefectibility, not of Papal Indefectibility.

If you believe otherwise, show me how you can justify your belief from the sempiternal Catholic Church. (see page 472, loss of papacy from Rome…)

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!

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

In the Bible, we have the constant contrast made between the faithful Israel and the unfaithful Anti-Israel, the later at one point of time being called Lo-Ammi - Not My People (Osee 1: 9 & 10) (See also St. Stephen’s denunciation of the reprobate Jews - Acts 7: 42-43, itself a repeat of Amos 5: 25)

In like manner, every other people or nation in its wild, un-Christian state, is an anti-people, while those who being obedient to the call of our Master, Yahweh Elohim, are the true people. The anti-people were driven into the underground by the Christian Ascendancies, but always sought and plotted to recoup…

Thus Anti-France triumphed in the Revolution, as Anti-Greece in the Photianist Schisms and Anti-England in the Tudor Schisms. Likewise there was and is also an Anti-Rome, presently reigning triumphantly in the usurped Vatican.

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.

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.

Do you remember that the then president (McKinley?) stated that he decided to war against Spain in order to take over the Phillipines so as to protestantise it… Today you can see the result; as the Americans are hedonistic and materialistic, so are the Phillipinians their clones in the same evil. Certainly, the severance of so many people from the Church and their adherence to the many loathsome sects (Philippine Independent Church, Iglesia ng Christo, etc.) must be squarely laid at America’s doorsteps.

The USA is the protector and patron of all the evils of our day - libertinism, religious liberty or the separation of Church & State, abortions, homosexuality, lesbianism, you name it. As such it is truly the Ark of Hell.

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

The national emblem of Mexico was our Lady of Guadalupe, but this was substituted by the Freemasons for a pre-Christian symbol of pagan Mexico. The very act of substitution and reversion to a pagan, pre-Christian symbol is declarative of the perpetrators rejection of Christianity and its legacy.

As for the American Eagle, it is the same Roman Imperial Eagle - again pre-Christian, the emblem, perhaps, of Anti-Rome. It is as such that many nations all over Europe have adopted it in many forms.

Except for these things the book is good, but I will need to study it more carefully before I can make a decision (which will also depend on your clarification of my objections re Papal Indefectibility and the unassailable place of the city and church of Rome, Italy, in the Holy Faith.)

Finally, the book is incomplete in that it does not provide information of the events leading to and of the actual ‘election’ itself. I will get back to you later, after doing a better and systematic study of the book.

Prakash J. Mascarenhas, Bombay, India.
1. The family presently ruling England, Scotland and English-Occupied Eire are not RUPERTINES. They are descended from the Elector Frederick, Pretender of Bohemia, through his daughter Sophia and not through his son, Rupert, pretender of Bohemia, as I thought. The error is mine. - PJM.