Seeking The Pope

Dear Teresa Benns (& David Bawden),

I am in the receipt of your letter, dated 27th September 2002. I will sit down with the book that Mr. Bawden had sent out to me, once again and go carefully over it. In the meantime, I have already written a letter to Mr. Bawden today (28th September 2002).

In response to your latest letter, I write:

First Principles

Caveat: What I write here, I write, not in response to any stimulus from the Bawdenite papal claim party, but what I have always maintained, even before I began to interact with this party. Nor should this statement be construed to mean a support or recognition of that party.

I wish to state this because I know that exactly such allegations will be made. Nevertheless, I know that I am, as far as this at least is concerned, clear in the eyes of God; therefore I have no fear.
It is said that the Bawdenite election is invalid on the ground that the electors were entirely from the laity; that they were too few; that they were, largely, members of the same family, with the exception of Teresa Benns; that women participated in the election.

I have already shown in my webpages that a purely lay election, as an extra-ordinary step, is fully justified. The small number of the electors is irrelevant: what is relevant is whether the election was open to all potential electors, and that the convenors of the election process attempted, as far as they could, to notify them of their intentions and invite them to participate. If, despite this, eligible voters failed, for whatever reason, to participate, they cannot deny the election, and are bound by its result, or they depart into schism. That the electors were mainly from the same family is also not relevant, granted that all participants are eligible voters.

The participation of women: Christianity is not misogynist. There are restrictions on women taking an active part in the Liturgies, but none whatsoever on them taking an active part in the normal life of the Church. There have been prophetesses from the time of the Apostles; and an election, per se, is not a proper part of a Liturgical service, and so, if some women are eligible to vote, they cannot be excluded.

Further objections: That David Bawden, claiming to be pope, has been waltzing around in plain clothes, and that he has photographs of himself in such attire taken at places of tourist interest in and around his city. Is that more or less scandalous than a great number of popes with Cardinal-Nephews, and other assorted hanger-ons, being, some of them at very young ages, foisted on the Church with benefices and bishoprics, etc. Is that more or less scandalous than a pope having a mistress? Very frankly, I see no scandal at all in Bawden's photographs. After all, our Lord omitted to specify a uniform and formal etiquette for popes to follow, didn't he? I can hardly see Bawden's supposedly unacceptable behaviour as disqualifying him from the papacy, if he were the pope.

Specific Responses - To T. Benns

It is my understanding that John Daly is no longer associated with Martin Gwynne. There seems to be something the matter with Gwynne. Your reference to a Cult is intriguing. Can I know some more?

Regarding the other elections, those of Linus II and Piux XIII, I fail to see that they have provided any justification, for disregarding the earlier election(s) and proceeding with their own. Without such a justification, and one that is conclusive, any attempt to elect another claimant can only be schismatical and heretical, for there cannot be two popes, not even by appearances.

Re. St. Michael fighting - Your text in the book should have given this background. As it stands, it is to be taken literally. And taken literally, it is unacceptably confusing. You have the obligation to correct, retract and clarify.

Destruction of Rome - You say that "There is no common opinion among theologians that Rome will never be physically destroyed, and if there is proof of this and I am wrong, please forward it to me." In contrast to Perlant - and David Bawden (letter of 24th September, 2002), I believe that the Vatican Council taught, indirectly, while directly teaching Papal Infallibility, the Doctrine of Roman Indefectibility. This doctrine does not teach that Rome cannot either largely defect or be physically destroyed: It merely teaches that Rome cannot either entirely defect or be physically destroyed. See my response to Perlant, at Contra-Perlant, especially the quotation from the Radio Replies of Frs. Rumble and Carty.

Re. the Great Monarch, you should have been more careful and specified the difference between the Catholic Great Monarch and the Great Anti-Monarch of pagan and other expectation. You must be aware that most pagan religions look forward to the coming of a Messianic figure - Maitreya in Buddhism, Kalki in Hinduism. Zoroastrianism, etc. looks forward to one.

Regarding Pius XII and a layman as pope, I find the alternative quotes provided by Mr. Bawden in his letter of 24th September, 2002, if I can verify them, to be more authoritative:
  1. Canon 219: The Roman Pontiff legitimately elected obtains, from the moment he accepts the election, the full power of supreme jurisdiction by divine right, &


  2. In Pope Pius XIIís 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.
I would certainly like to have Pope Pius XII's address, The Lay Apostolate, to the Second World Congress for the Lay Apostolate delivered Oct. 5, 1957, to be found in The Pope Speaks Vol. IV. I would like to, at the least, host it on my website.

Specific Responses - To David Bawden

I reserve my answer on the subject of Ecclesia Supplet for later.

The charge of the Trinitarian Heresy made against Lefebvre still baffles me.

Re. the Canons of St. John of the Lateran, I have received a message from a Mr. Lundahl that is more specific to the point, and so I feature it here:

From: "Hans Georg Lundahl"
To: prakashjm45@yahoo.com
Subject: St John Lateran
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 15:27:56 +0200

St John Lateran is also known as the Basilica (or Archbasilica) of Our Saviour. It is the episcopal as distinct from papal cathedral of the successors of St. Peter - or was until 1978, if Palmar de Troya is the Church.

For any see, there were two methods of supplying a new bishop after the demise of his predecessor:

  1. choice by the Holy See
  2. election by the Canonici (the Canons: priests originally required to live with the bishop as monks with their abbot, but in an active rather than purely contemplative life, usually according to rule of St Augustine).
The first being within the rights of the Pope at any time, but the latter during many centuries allowed to many sees to spare the Pope an impossible burden considering the expenses and time it takes to travel between Rome and, say Upsala.

And since there is no see above the Holy See, the second is the only method applicable to it. But as it has two Cathedrals:

  1. St. Peter, Cathedral of the Pope as Pope, and
  2. St. John Lateran, Cathedral of the Pope as Bishop of Rome
the immediate holders of the right to Papal election after the demise of all cardinals (quasi-canons of the Vatican) would be the canons of St John Lateran.

I found it in a French or English encyclopedia on Canon Law, in the University Library of Lund some months ago - when considering the important question of HOW the Papal Election of El Palmar de Troya could be legitimate.
Our differences on the issue of what the Vatican Council did teach, indirectly, when it was directly teaching Papal Infallibility, remains unbridgeable, for now. I reject your and Perlant's belief that it taught Papal Indefectibility, and believe that it taught Roman Indefectibility. Likewise, I reject your belief that those who still taught Papal Defectibility after 1870 (till 1958 and uptil today) are heretics.

And I wish to point out (with some excusable glee) that I am in harmony with Frs. Rumble and Carty in their Radio Replies! (See Contra-Perlant.)

As for Roncalli, I, despite much searching, even on the net, and solicitation of material, have not found any evidence at all to prove that he was a heretic prior to his supposed election: Rumours do not count as evidence. Personally, I believe that the probability is greater that in fact he was a heretic prior to his election. However, in the absence of evidence, I can only judge by the material at hand, that he manifested himself a heretic only upon his election, and not prior to it, that therefore, until proved otherwise, his election is to be taken as valid, but it is to be understood that he defected from the faith subsequently, when he contumaciously taught and propagated heresy, sacrificing his chance for recovery by medical intervention so as to safeguard heresy and heretics in his Latrocinium of Vatican II, a process that was intended to bring about secession from Christianity and achieved the erection of a new body, a heretical and schismatic sect. the New Catholic Church. (See my page on Roncalli).

Granted that there is no evidence, I can only say that the Scriptural text from Maccabees applies to him: "And they laid up the (desecrated altar) stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them." I Maccabees 4:46.
I would also like to be put in touch with Mr. Kenneth Mock and the (largely Vietnamese) Sede International, if you can help.

Yours sincerely,

Prakash J. M., Bombay, India.