| From |
"Pope Michael" <PMichael@Kansas.net> |
| To |
"mascarenhas prakash john" <prakashjm45@yahoo.com>
|
| 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
THE CONTROVERSIAL POPE:
POPE PIUS XII
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.
A LIMIT TO EPIKEIA
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.
PSALMS
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.
CALENDAR
"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.
HOLY WEEK
"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.
CAN A HERETIC BECOME 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:
- 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;
- 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
- it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
- 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
- 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?
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 College....at 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.
CAN THE POPE BE JUDGED?
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.
WHAT IS SCHISM?
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.
RESULTS OF DEFECTION FROM THE CHURCH
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
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.)
THE PROPER USE OF EPIKEIA
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!
OUR RIGHT TO THE SACRAMENTS
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.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR SALVATION TO SUBMIT TO THE POPE
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.
ALL SHOULD SUBMIT TO US AS POPE
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.
CONFUSION
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.
| W |
For the Unity of the Church:
David Allen Bawden, known as Pope Michael
August 30, 2002, Saint Rose of Lima.
|
My reply