Seeking The Pope

Dear Sir, - Thank you for your mails. I specially appreciate the information about the Canons of St. John Lateran.

You say that you cannot discount the Palmarian sect on the basis of psuedo-mysticalism, because, as you put it, then you must also reject the effort to end the Babylonian Captivity of the Popes in Avignon, and return them to Rome, because of the role that the Private Revelations (made to St. Bridget of Sweden, etc.) played in the effort.

The reasoning is wrong. The effort to end the Babylonian Captivity was not primarily motivated by messages received in these Private Revelations, but four-square on Catholic Theology: The fundamental doctrine that the Papal See is fixed immoveably at Rome; that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome first and Pope as a consequence; that even when the Pope is located elsewhere, he is merely an exile, and belongs properly in Rome. These Private Revelations only sought to motivate Catholics to do their duty - work to end the Scandal of the Babylonian Captivity, and therefore, for message content, cannot be compared to the purported apparitions of Clement Dominguez-Gomez.

The Papal or Apostolic See cannot be moved from Rome: to aver otherwise is heresy. (e.g., Unam Sanctam.)

The Scandal of the Avignonese Residence consisted in this, that the Popes for a long time, and apparently, permanently, were residing in Avignon rather than in Rome.

The Palmarians are heretics and schismatics not only for basing the constitution of their "pope" in a purported apparition, but also because they claim that the Papal or Apostolic See is now transferred to Palmar de Troya, a hamlet near Seville, Spain.

You say that St. Peter crowned Clement Dominguez-Gomez "pope" in a purported apparition, and ask whether Peter lost his right, such as you claim he had, to name his successor, by martyrdom?

Peter's martyrdom has nothing to do with losing or keeping this right. First of all, very frankly, I do not know anything about this right. And if he had any such right, he exercised it once and for all by naming or not naming his immediate successor in the Bishopric of Rome. His death extinguished that right, if he had it.

Is Peter still the pope even after his death? If he can name his successor in 1978, then, apparently, he is. But if he is, then there cannot be another pope, even Clement Dominguez-Gomez... And the entire line of popes from Peter's first successor down to Pius XII is a great fraud... But if Peter ceased to be pope at his death, then he certainly does not have the right to name a successor in 1978... Isn't that obvious?

If anyone claims a message given in an apparition, then that message can be believed only after the Church has approved it. Did the Church approve the apparitions of Palmar de Troya, as it did La Salette, Lourdes, Fatima, etc. ?

But granted that such an apparition is approved, (an ideological impossibility), that still does not satisfy this case, as to accept a man as the pope or future pope as constituted by the apparition, then each and every Catholic must necessarily be bound to believe that apparition.

But precisely no apparition can be universally binding to be credited by one and all of the Catholics; this the Church has said and said time and again. This is true even when the apparition has been tested and proved by the Church. Therefore, given that this impossibility came to pass, there will be chaos and tumult and civil war with some accepting this man and others rejecting him, very legitimately, within their rights as always taught by the Church.

Some will accept and submit to this apparitional claimant, others will follow the regular claimant resulting from the election following the demise of the previous pope. The faithful will be riven between two popes!

Therefore, it is obvious to common sense that no papal claim based purely on an apparition, and not ratified or supplied by a proper election, of some kind or the other, can be approved of.
Re. Pius XII: It is obvious enough that he meant what he said in an orthodox sense. He meant, as I understand it, that he was uniting himself with the just aspirations of all men, especially with those of the souls in invincible ignorance. The context is made clear by the qualifying phrase "it is torn by discord, troubled by hatred, a victim of its own sin" - certainly not a celebration of the world, is it?

You can contrast that statement with those made by the Modernist clowns Roncalli, Montini and Wojtyla, celebrating and extolling the world. Can you see any similarity?

It would take very much to misconstrue those words of Pius XII to mean a celeberation or extolling of the world, a Shameless, Unrepentant Triumphalism of the Sinful World... a la Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla.

Tell me, friend: Is that what you see Pius XII saying in these words?

Yours sincerely,

Prakash J. Mascarenhas, Bombay, India.

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:

choice by the Holy See

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:

St. Peter, Cathedral of the Pope as Pope, and

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.
In defense of Palmarianism:

St Peter is the only Pope admitted by all Catholics to have the right to name his successor - did he lose that right by martyrdom?

If Private revelations - St Peter having appeared to Gregory XVII in such a one, this being the reason Pope (?) Michael rejects him, could never publicly bind the faithful in conscience (this being supposedly an addition to the Public Revelation), what about the private revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden demanding the return of the Pope to Rome? After all, the Cardinals who rejected the Roman Line were the same who returned to Avignon, horrified at the material conditions of the Holy City. They could have disclaimed the legitimacy of returning to Rome and the conclave held there on the ground of "pseudo-mysticism" - and I do not know them not to have used that argument.
Hans Georg Lundahl
From: "Hans Georg Lundahl"
To: prakashjm45@yahoo.com
Subject: Pius XII?
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 15:29:54 +0200

This has been sent to Lucian Pulvermacher/Pius XIII and to Michael - and unsuccessfully to Gregory XVII.
From: Hans-Georg Mikael Elizur Lundahl
To: adoremus@mailbox.calypso.net ; jon@semera.se ; icrbat@ix.netcom.com ; icrss@centroin.it ; fr.hudson@freeworld.be ; Dr.Heinz-Lothar.Barth@t-online.de ; info@fsspx.org ; palmar.troyas@usa.net ; sacerdos@texas.net
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 9:04 AM
Subject: Pius XII?

Would not Franciscan Lucian Pulvermacher/Pius XIII read German? I'll try to translate anyway. And with the book before me, to correct the errors of my memory.
In the consecration of the World to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Das Goldene Buch, Grignon de Montfort, Kanisius Verlag, Fribourg, 1957) third paragraph, "Pius XII" writes:

"We unite ourselves not only to the Church... We also unite ourselves to the entire world; it is torn by discord, troubled by hatred, a victim of its own sin."

How can a Catholic man say before God, that he unites himself to the sinful world? The three enemies of the soul are Devil, World and the Flesh. Uniting oneself to the entire world, including the most sinful, wicked and erroneous societies and peoples is the opposite of the Baptismal Vows! Or can anyone give me an orthodox and pious exposition of this?

May the Franciscan Lucian Pulvermacher, since 1998 also known as Pius XIII please excuse me that I write him again. This is a great thing and no small matter.

Hans Georg Lundahl
From: "Sacerdos"
To: "Hans-Georg Mikael Elizur Lundahl"
Subject: Re: Pius XII?
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 11:59:13 -0500

I am sorry, but we do not speak or read German. Can you send it in English?

Fr. R Lyons
From: "Hans Georg Lundahl"

In der Weltweihe an das Unbefleckte Herz Mariens (das Goldene Buch, Frb .... 1957), drittem Absatz, schreibt "Pius XII":

"Wir vereinigen uns nicht nur mit ...Kirche... Wir vereinigen uns auch mit der ganzen Welt: sie ist .../durchwühlt von Hasz/ ein Opfer ihrer eigenen Sünde"

Der Franziskaner Lucian Pulvermacher, seit 1998 auch als Pius XIII bekannt, möge mir bitte entschuldigen, dasz ich ihm nochmals schreibe. Es ist dies eine grosze Sache und keine Kleinigkeit.

Wie kann ein katholischer mann vor Gott sagen, er vereinige sich mit der sündigen Welt? Die drei Feinde der Seele sind ja Teufel, Welt und das eigene Fleisch. Die Vereinigung mit der ganzen Welt, einschlieslich der sündigsten, boshaftesten und irrigsten Gemeinschaften und Völker ist doch das Gegenteil der Taufgelübde! Oder kann mir jemand dies als rechtgläubig und fromm auslegen?

Hans Georg Lundahl