Introibo's Latest Answer Deserves Some Philology

Here it is*:

1. Bishop Kurz died in 1973. The “bishop” of Tivoli was a Modernist to whom Father paid no attention yet they were on good terms. He received no notice from Bawden. Father would have known because he tried to convert him frequently on phone calls. Not that it makes a difference because Bawden has no authority to call a conclave. 2. You write: The usual (and legal) exclusion of women is due to the usual (and legal) exclusion of laymen. This being de jure humano David Bawden and back then Theresa Benns had thought this dispensable. Reply: They are wrong on all counts (no surprise). Women were excluded because THOSE WHO CAN VOTE MUST ALSO BE ABLE TO BE ELECTED. Hence when Montini excluded octogenarians Ottaviani couldn’t participate. He couldn’t attend and vote if he couldn’t be elected. The 2/3 plus one rule was enacted by Pope Pius XII. It’s interesting to see what they believe they can and cannot dispense. On their own terms, Bawden could not be elected. Remove his mommy, Teresa Benns, and his neighbor’s wife. That leaves Bawden, his daddy, and the male neighbor. Bawden claims not to have voted for himself. But 2/3 of 3 is two, plus one means ALL THREE WOULD BE NECESSARY. It’s really stupid to even go that far when the two geniuses can’t even realize women cannot participate. They have no authority to call a conclave. 3. You write: Are you Palmarian or Colinist? Do you hope for sth like that in the future? Reply: No, I’m not mentally unstable that I would join some crackpot like the blind, sodomite “seer” in Spain. Some theologians teach that Divine Intervention is a possible solution. However, it would be ratified publicly by something like the miracle of the sun at Fatima. 4. You write: I think it was put to a straining test in "Benedict XVI" - I accepted him for a while. I hoped he had been elected after a material pope and was going to be a formal one. Reply: I believe Luciani may have proven the thesis true. One week after his election, he summoned Fr DePauw to come to Vatican City at the end of September. He was planning on making a Commission to annul Vatican II (and implied Fr would be consecrated and given the Red Hat). John Paul I realized the P2 Masonic Lodge was bad news. He also most probably renounced Modernism. Hence, he was murdered. 5. You write: Given the state of necessity, and given that election by cardinals is not a requirement de jure divino but de jure humano, I think one can hope we do have a pope. Reply: There is no theologian who teaches bishops may be superseded by a “conclave” of laymen and women. There is no necessity of having a living pope on the throne at all times. Theologian O’Reilley, one of the best theologians from the Vatican Council of 1870, stated that we must not put a limit on how long God would permit an interregnum. 6. You write: I know from when I contacted him (Bawden) back in 2002 or sth (back then championing Palmar de Troya) and about certain issues about Christendom, he has been in contact with the CIA. Reply: Besides his ipse dixit, you know this is true...how?? I’m sure he was in contact with the CIA. And the FBI. And space aliens. And Bigfoot. And let’s not forget Elvis. You write: What if they turned against him? What if they, (CIA) with some secret service paranoia, concluded he would be less manageable than just dealing with "Pope Benedict" and imposed silence? Reply: The only paranoia is that of Bawden. Do you see that all you have is his ipse dixit and your wild hypotheticals? I’ll play along and counter with my own hypothetical. What if he stood up to them and allowed himself to be martyred? Then couldn’t God bring him back to life publicly and prove he’s pope? 7. You write: Nevertheless, the Duarte Costa line has been declared illegal, but not invalid. Old Catholics have been even declared invalid. Reply: That’s because there’s no pope to declare the Duarte Costa Line invalid. Much has changed since the 1950s ruling, like their acceptance of Anglican orders as valid. The Duarte Costa line is now dubious at best. Duarte Costa “bishop” Craig Bates is invalid. So too could be “Bp.” Bob, who Bawden will not discuss. 8. You write: There is so much to be said for approved theologians ... one of the things is, if they are approved, they can be named and cited. Yes, read my post above. I cite Bellarmine and Des Lauriers. You want people to follow a man as “pope” who: *Has completed no formal theological training or education, yet trains “seminarians” in his farmhouse. * Will not answer questions as to the whereabouts of his alleged ordaining and consecrating bishop. Nor is Bob’s orders definitely valid. He also has no formal seminary training. The result? His “mass” and “sacraments” are dubious as will be any “priests” he ordains. Would a real pope leave such doubts? * Claims to have been visited by the CIA (dare I say “delusional”?) * was in a “conclave” put together by Benns, a woman who doesn’t understand the basics of theology for a valid sacrament, and had 6 members—3 of whom were women. He doesn’t even meet his own standards for validity as I demonstrated above. *has been “pope” for 30 years, yet has no followers more than 100 or so because he’s “persecuted” and God’s “trying to make him nicer.” Three decades isn’t long enough for God to make it work out. Hans, I suggest you look with greater care into the things you write. As far as the donkey is concerned, just make sure you know the difference between “your ass and your elbow.” (A time honored American idiom). —-Introibo

I

Introibo

1. Bishop Kurz died in 1973. The “bishop” of Tivoli was a Modernist to whom Father paid no attention yet they were on good terms. He received no notice from Bawden. Father would have known because he tried to convert him frequently on phone calls. Not that it makes a difference because Bawden has no authority to call a conclave.

Hans Georg

I was referring to De Pauw's bishop within Sedevacantism, not to one he regarded as a heretic.

Kurz was certainly not notified if he was a modernist.

I suppose DePauw later did submit to some bishop?

II

Introibo

2. You write: The usual (and legal) exclusion of women is due to the usual (and legal) exclusion of laymen. This being de jure humano David Bawden and back then Theresa Benns had thought this dispensable.

Reply: They are wrong on all counts (no surprise). Women were excluded because THOSE WHO CAN VOTE MUST ALSO BE ABLE TO BE ELECTED. Hence when Montini excluded octogenarians Ottaviani couldn’t participate. He couldn’t attend and vote if he couldn’t be elected. The 2/3 plus one rule was enacted by Pope Pius XII. It’s interesting to see what they believe they can and cannot dispense. On their own terms, Bawden could not be elected. Remove his mommy, Teresa Benns, and his neighbor’s wife. That leaves Bawden, his daddy, and the male neighbor. Bawden claims not to have voted for himself. But 2/3 of 3 is two, plus one means ALL THREE WOULD BE NECESSARY.

It’s really stupid to even go that far when the two geniuses can’t even realize women cannot participate. They have no authority to call a conclave.

Hans Georg

Er ... it would seem that the principle you invoke is not de jure divino.

Up to sth like the Dark Century, Popes were elected by acclamation from the people in Rome (like bishops are still elected among the Orthodox).

Well before then, episcopacy (therefore also papacy) was restricted to celibates.

But there were married men among the voters. Therefore, the principle may be a good legal one in recent jurisprudence de jure humano and as to the reasons of the Church to make such and such a rule, but it cannot be de jure divino.

Now, in a case of necessity and with the use of epikeia, all rules de jure humano can be dispensed with until the necessity be removed. And electing a Pope was removal of the necessity.

Including women is done because women have the vote these days.

The majority required was never, even before Pius XII, a minority, so, the one conclave he invokes as having been swamped by laymen, if it was valid, was valid due to a majority involving all those electing.

If someone had existed having authority to convoke an ordinary conclave, there would not have been the kind of necessity he invoked.

I am reminded of how Fr. Paul Natterer, FSSPX, reasoned against Sedevacantim : Pius XII had done away with ineligibility of cardinals for various reasons (according to bare wording, it would suggest all reasons, including heresy), bc the Church wanted to avoid getting an election disputed. He also was more into recent legislative measures than into the distinction de jure humano and de jure divino : a non-believer is ineligible de jure divino.

III

Introibo

3. You write: Are you Palmarian or Colinist? Do you hope for sth like that in the future?

Reply: No, I’m not mentally unstable that I would join some crackpot like the blind, sodomite “seer” in Spain. Some theologians teach that Divine Intervention is a possible solution. However, it would be ratified publicly by something like the miracle of the sun at Fatima.

Hans Georg

Would it hit news?

The miracle of the Sun was hitting one newspaper. O Siglo.

I was willing to accept the apparitions since I knew that them hitting the news would not happen. We don't have that kind of media these days. Also, I never knew he was continuing any kind of homosexual activity after his conversion or purported such, whether sodomy or (as previous to it) porn, until a few seconds after I had left him on other grounds.

Another kind of making public a ratification would also be difficult in present conditions, namely ratification by a bishop or pope. Those in or with the present Vatican would probably not want to, and those outside have not yet the unity required for a miracle to get universal acceptation.

IV

Introibo

4. You write: I think it was put to a straining test in "Benedict XVI" - I accepted him for a while. I hoped he had been elected after a material pope and was going to be a formal one.

Reply: I believe Luciani may have proven the thesis true. One week after his election, he summoned Fr DePauw to come to Vatican City at the end of September. He was planning on making a Commission to annul Vatican II (and implied Fr would be consecrated and given the Red Hat). John Paul I realized the P2 Masonic Lodge was bad news. He also most probably renounced Modernism. Hence, he was murdered.

Hans Georg

Pot calls kettle black ... here you go diving into news that officially don't exist, any more than Palmarian apparitions or - after removal from wikipedia - the episcopal line Pope Michael has from Duarte Costa.

The possibility of John Paul I having been a true pope, like the possibility of cardinal Siri having been the real Gregory XVII, while each excludes the other, neither exxcludes David Bawden having acted in a sedevacant situation. Dying 1978 or 1989 (or 1974, as Michel Colin) means you are not around with or without papacy in 1990.

V

Introibo

5. You write: Given the state of necessity, and given that election by cardinals is not a requirement de jure divino but de jure humano, I think one can hope we do have a pope.

Reply: There is no theologian who teaches bishops may be superseded by a “conclave” of laymen and women. There is no necessity of having a living pope on the throne at all times. Theologian O’Reilley, one of the best theologians from the Vatican Council of 1870, stated that we must not put a limit on how long God would permit an interregnum.

Hans Georg

Did any other theologian disagree?

I'd consider 70 to 72 years rather ominous to pass ... and if Pius XII ceased to be Pope in 1950 or 51 by apostasy, as Michel Colin considered to know from a private revelation, and as I consider a clear possibility on other grounds (Humani Generis!), we are there, this year or within 2023.

If Pius XII ceased to be Pope when he died, that would leave time to 2028 or 2030.

Did O'Reilly deal with this sum (70/72 years) at all, and if so, why did he dismiss it?

How is dismissing it not in variance with "perpetuos successores"?

VI

Introibo

6. You write: I know from when I contacted him (Bawden) back in 2002 or sth (back then championing Palmar de Troya) and about certain issues about Christendom, he has been in contact with the CIA.

Reply: Besides his ipse dixit, you know this is true...how?? I’m sure he was in contact with the CIA. And the FBI. And space aliens. And Bigfoot. And let’s not forget Elvis.

You write: What if they turned against him?

What if they, (CIA) with some secret service paranoia, concluded he would be less manageable than just dealing with "Pope Benedict" and imposed silence?

Reply: The only paranoia is that of Bawden. Do you see that all you have is his ipse dixit and your wild hypotheticals? I’ll play along and counter with my own hypothetical. What if he stood up to them and allowed himself to be martyred? Then couldn’t God bring him back to life publicly and prove he’s pope?

Hans Georg

You have DePauw's ipse dixit that he was not contacted prior to conclave.

As I wrote in an all too short answer, his words, as I recall them (and you have my ipse dixi for them) were "I have been in contact with the CIA" - not stating who contacted whom. Also not stating it as sth he was uncomfortable about.

If he contacted them, it is probable they started off with a loud guffaw. Then played around a bit with him, perhaps even facilitated the ordination and consecration, then saw he started to gain followers. AND then claimed he needed to notify none but statesmen, and so on, as he had already done.

I have been inadvertently lacking in candour to you, as I didn't straight off say, of the two seminarians, one's away, one's already ordained. An ex-Baptist.

The point being, silence has been imposed - by Pope Michael or someone else. Things are less upfront than they were just after the consecration in 2011.

VII

Introibo

7. You write: Nevertheless, the Duarte Costa line has been declared illegal, but not invalid. Old Catholics have been even declared invalid.

Reply: That’s because there’s no pope to declare the Duarte Costa Line invalid. Much has changed since the 1950s ruling, like their acceptance of Anglican orders as valid. The Duarte Costa line is now dubious at best. Duarte Costa “bishop” Craig Bates is invalid. So too could be “Bp.” Bob, who Bawden will not discuss.

Hans Georg

Duarte Costa line within ICAB and Duarte Costa line outside ICAB are not on the same footing.

Wild hypothetical : what if the line leading up to Bob Biarnesen split off from them before that recognition?

However, Bates rings a bell.

Plus, there is a difference between stating one can give Anglicans valid orders if they are Anglicans believing Real Presence and Sacrifice of the Mass (Puseyite Anglicans), which Orthodox Church of Antioch has also done, and pretending Anglicans previous to Pusey and majority not with Laud, who were neither recognising Sacrifice of the Mass nor Real Presence already had it.

VIII

Introibo

8. You write: There is so much to be said for approved theologians ... one of the things is, if they are approved, they can be named and cited.

Yes, read my post above. I cite Bellarmine and Des Lauriers.

Hans Georg

Your citation of Bellarmine doesn't deal with what he WOULD have approved if facing the unwill of Sede bishops to unite over an imperfect ecumenical council.

You actually do not cite him for excluding after bishops fail, laymen could take over. You only cite his not having explicitly said they could. Reminding on how some treat the Bible when facing Catholics.

If there can be an imperfect general council, why need an emergency conclave (what Bawden claimed to assemble) follow all the normal and perfect criteria?

The points against Pope Michael:

"You want people to follow a man as “pope” who:"

• Has completed no formal theological training or education, yet trains “seminarians” in his farmhouse.
  
  
• Will not answer questions as to the whereabouts of his alleged ordaining and consecrating bishop. Nor is Bob’s orders definitely valid. He also has no formal seminary training. The result? His “mass” and “sacraments” are dubious as will be any “priests” he ordains. Would a real pope leave such doubts?
  
  
• Claims to have been visited by the CIA (dare I say “delusional”?)
  
  
• was in a “conclave” put together by Benns, a woman who doesn’t understand the basics of theology for a valid sacrament, and had 6 members—3 of whom were women. He doesn’t even meet his own standards for validity as I demonstrated above.
  
  
• has been “pope” for 30 years, yet has no followers more than 100 or so because he’s “persecuted” and God’s “trying to make him nicer.” Three decades isn’t long enough for God to make it work out. "

Replying, point by point:

• If he's Pope, he decides what training is enough.
• He can have his reasons, as I suggested. He has not put the reasons in relation with his contacts with the CIA, I have.
• He claimed to have been in contact with them. If he phoned them or they visited him did not really show from the wording I recall.
• Benn's supposed incapacity would perhaps be sth you need to prove, not just claim. A conclave is not a sacrament, otherwise there would be no women conferring papacy ever, either first millennium or past one.
• Let's differentiate between my conclusions and the facts about him, shall we? Meanwhile, you follow people who seem to claim a sedevacancy can go on if not for ever at least for as long as it takes, no matter how long that is.

Also, while you didn't straight out say so, it seems you considered ordination and consecration of someone not having completed a formal training as not only illicit, but even only doubtfully valid. By now, the ordinary training (even since before Vatican II I think) involve some courses in psychology, which would make the goodwill of those having completed such training doubtful. God could not allow bishops to fall into the two classes, valid, but without goodwill, since pro-shrink, and good-willed, since not pro-shrink, but only by a lack of training making their orders invalid. The knowledge required before one is consecrated bishop is as far as jure divino requirements are concerned left to the discretion of electors or consecrating bishops.

Hans, I suggest you look with greater care into the things you write. As far as the donkey is concerned, just make sure you know the difference between “your ass and your elbow.” (A time honored American idiom).

Both Swedish and Austrian school systems and my reading prefer British English, in which language a-s-s spells the animal you call a jackass. As to donkey, it is current in both versions of English. I may owe the asinine kind an apology for comparing you to them. At least if you are pro-shrink and pro-evolution.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
XIX Lord's Day after Pentecost
11.X.2010

* From comments below Introibo Ad Altare Dei : When Can We Say "Habemus Papam" Again?
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/09/when-can-we-say-habemus-papam-again.html