In Case Anyone Thinks I'm Deluded for Believing Pope Michael I Existed and that I Knew Him ...

Here is someone else reporting on his existence.

The story he gives is a bit twisted, like Pope Michael I being elected by "six votes" ... no, he didn't vote for himself, he was elected by five votes against one (that being his own) and here he is saying so:

The First American Pope
Skyleryaps | 17 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uRVD9xCo-ck

I didn't know there were overall eight people there, and that two minors weren't voting because minors.

He also did get the updates right.

I only accepted his papacy after learning he had been ordained priest and consecrated bishop, and I have, even after he died, seen comments saying "he wasn't even a bishop" .... well, he was.

And after nearly a year he got a successor.

Last sedevacancy was from 2nd Aug. 2022 to 29th July 2023.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Our Lady of the Rosary
7 October 2026

Festum sacratissimi Rosarii beatae Mariae Virginis; itemque sanctae Mariae de Victoria commemoratio, quam sanctus Pius Quintus, Pontifex Maximus, ob insignem victoriam a Christianis bello navali, ejusdem sanctissimae Dei Genitricis auxilio, hac ipsa die de Turcis reportatam, quotannis fieri instituit.

La thése sédévacantiste totaliste exige une élection d'urgence

Pour répondre à une question cette nuit : qu'est-ce que je reproche au "Vatican" ? · La thése sédévacantiste totaliste exige une élection d'urgence · St. Robert Bellarmin vs FSSPX

Si d'un côté le pape qu'on a dans le Vatican n'est pas pape (position quelque part d'actualité depuis Vatican II, et devenue plus d'actualité en 1986, quand Jean Paul II priait en Assise avec des Païens). Si d'un autre côté les électeur normaux, les cardinaux, refusent de voir ça, ou sont eux-mêmes des hérétiques. Alors, le devoir d'élire un nouveau pape descend.

Une élection papale n'est pas dans son essence même liée à la présence de cardinaux, comme une succession royale n'est pas dans son essence même liée à la présence d'un fils aîné capable à régner. Il y a des cas qu'on a dû faire sans ça, dans la Francie occidentale, soit la France, comme le dernier Mérovingien, le dernier Carolingien, le dernier Capet direct, le dernier Valois. Pour Childéric III, son fils Thierry (de droit Thierry V) est aussi enfermé en monastère. Mais il n'aurait pas pu succéder sans d'avoir d'abord un régent. Louis V le Fainéant n'a pas de fils. Pas de filles non plus. Philippe IV le Bel a trois fils, mais Louis X n'a qu'une fille, Jeanne II de Navarre, Philippe V le Long a quatre filles, mais son fils Philippe de France meurt à l'âge d'un an, Charles IV le Bel a trois épouses, les premiers deux ont donné des fils, mais Philippe de France et Louis de France meurent trop vite. Henri III assassiné en 1589 avait aussi été roi de Pologne, il n'a pas d'enfants, son héritier est d'abord le dernier de la fratrie, ensuite Henri de Bourbon, ensuite Charles de Bourbon, ensuite Henri de Bourbon, donc Henri IV, le premier Bourbon.

De même, c'est possible qu'il y a une succession papale sans cardinaux. Le cas où tous sont morts avait déjà été prévu par des théologiens, le cas que tous sont, soit apostats, ou au moins hérétiques, soit négligents du devoir par adhérence indue et de leur part au moins schismatique à un faux pape, ce sont des cas comparables.

Après les cardinaux, il y a les évêques. Pour les évêques qui partagent les erreurs de Vatican II ou d'Assise 1986, non. Pour ceux qui en dépit de leur orthodoxie insistaient à prendre Jean Paul II pour le pape, c'était un act au moins schismatique. Ce qui laisse les évêques sédévacantistes.

Est-ce que le devoir peut descendre encore plus bas que les évêques ?

Il faut savoir que pendant environ mille ans, il n'y avait pas de cardinaux chargé d'élire eux seuls les papes. Les évêques, prêtres et diacres de l'archidiocèse Rome n'étaient pas encore les électeurs ordinaires, mais c'étaient le peuple de Rome. Le clergé avait certes un rôle de convoquer l'élection et de présenter les candidats, mais celui était élu qu'on criait ou devant lequel on criait le plus fort AXIOS (en grec) ou, pour Rome après le IV S. peut-être plutôt DIGNUS. Il n'y a donc pas d'inconvénient absolu et insurmontable à ce que les électeurs soient laïcs.

Pas non plus que l'élu soit laïc. St. Ambroise était élu avant même son baptême, et quand un pape était élu sans être déjà évêque, il était souvent sacré par l'évêque d'Ostia (ville portuaire de Rome).

Pas non plus que les électeurs soit une poignée, ridiculement peux nombreux.

Au début de l'année 1130, alors que le pape Honorius II est à l'article de la mort, le cardinal Aymeric, partisan des Frangipani, persuade ce dernier d'instituer une commission de huit cardinaux pour élire son successeur. Il resterait ensuite au Sacré Collège d'approuver ce choix. En pratique, la commission se trouve composée d'une minorité de pro-Pierleoni, pourtant majoritaires dans le Sacré Collège.

Quand Honorius II meurt le 13 février 1130, Aymeric réunit les six autres membres de la commission présents sur place, dont un seul partisan des Pierleoni. Gregorio, proche des Frangipani, est donc élu par six voix contre une ; il prend le nom d'Innocent II. Le vote est confirmé par dix autres cardinaux de la même faction, pour la plupart français. Quelques heures plus tard, les cardinaux de la faction Pierleone, majoritaires, élisent Pierre Pierleone, qui prend le nom d'Anaclet II.

Anaclet II avait la majorité pour lui, pourtant Innocent II était le pape, parce qu'il avait été élu le premier. Même si c'était par très peux.

Bon, avant les six laïcs assemblés le Jour de Notre Dame de Carmel 1990, dont cinq ont élu David Bawden, qui prit le nom pape Michel, personne ne vote pour soi-même, pourquoi pas attendre les évêques sédévacantistes ? La réponse est, pas mal entre eux avaient commencé à douter de la thèse sédévacantiste totaliste (Jean Paul II n'était pas pape du tout, mais du tout, pas non plus que son pote le Dalai Lama) pour soutenir la thèse dite de Cassiciacum (Jean Paul II était pape matériel, mais pas formel) ou au moins d'avoir une doute en faveur de ceci. Et si quelqu'un soutenait encore la thèse sédévacantiste totaliste, il jugeait le temps importun, et voulait d'abord persuader les autres évêques.

Autre précaution. Juste parce que Jean Paul II n'était pas pape ne voulait pas dire qu'il n'y avait pas du tout un pape. Fallait vérifier les autres qui prétendaient ou dont on prétendait qu'ils étaient papes.

Clément XV avec le successeur Jean Gregoire XVII étaient éliminés (dans la jugeote de David Bawden, pas encore élu) parce qu'ils prétendaient avoir été élus par révélation privée. Sans de faire trop de doutes sur l'honnêteté de ces gens, une révélation privée peut venir du diable. Grégoire XVII de Palmar de Troya pour la même raison.

Le cardinal Siri, avait-il été élu pape ? Si oui, était-il resté pape même en tenant l'élection un secret ? Pour David Bawden, il aurait fait l'équivalence d'une abdication, pourvu que l'histoire se tenait, le moment qu'il acquiesça de ne pas faire valoir que son abdication était forcée, mais si on est en désaccord, il serait au moins impossible qu'on puisse avoir pris la charge de pape en intention de le tenir secret et de faire semblant que Jean Paul II était pape. Car Siri était déjà mort en 1989.

Les prétendants Lin II et Pie XIII ? Michel I les va de la suite disqualifier, parce qu'ils viennent après lui-même (1992 et 1998). Les deux sous prétexte qu'il était laïc. Pie XIII sous le prétexte encore que Lin II était hérétique parce que de la Fraternité St. Pie X, dont l'acceptation de Jean Paul II (accepté un temps par Lin II) les rend hérétiques. En plus, ils sont depuis disparus sans succession propre, je ne sais pas combien d'entre leurs adhérents qui ont éventuellement de la suite rejoint Michel I.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts Marin et Astère
3.III.2026

Caesareae, in Palaestina, sanctorum Martyrum Marini militis, et Asterii Senatoris, in persecutione Valeriani. Horum prior, cum accusatus esset a commilitonibus ut Christianus, et, interrogatus a Judice, se Christianum esse voce clarissima testaretur, martyrii coronam abscissione capitis accepit; cumque Asterius corpus Martyris, capite truncatum, subjectis humeris et substrata veste, qua induebatur, exciperet, honorem quem Martyri detulit, continuo et ipse Martyr accepit.

How Awful, Dr. Ashenden!

A few weeks ago we approached a shocking reading in the liturgy during Mass, and I waited to see how it would be delivered.* [Ephesians 5:22 and following verses]

...

But I never got to hear the passage read in Church at Mass. The middle-aged lady who was on duty to read that day stopped short and refused to continue the reading to the end. There was a pause; and a silence. I looked up to see if it was a dramatic pause? It wasn’t. It was the pause of abandonment. She approached the shocking words of the climax of the Pauline mystery of the mutuality of self-surrender, and stopping short, she turned away and left the lectern several sentences too early.

I was indeed shocked; but not by the text. Instead by the determination of the guardians of ‘progressive church’ to protect our ears from the unthinkable.

Dr. Ashenden, to the Vatican in Exile, you are Monsignor Ashenden.** And I presume that kind of female lector is still not allowed among us.

Just saying./HGL

* From Dr. Gavin Ashenden's substack today. ** Episcopal line of Duarte Costa, same as Pope Michael I.

Vatican II ou Michel II, entre deux Marranes (en mon cas avec antécédants)

Appel aux sédévacantistes
Chaine catholique du père Horovitz | 6 juin 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jas7yM47cx8

[Paraît que quelqu'un ait voulu faire à l'abbé Horovits la "reproche" d'être Marrane, il en énumère certains comme l'abbé Libermann ou les frères Ratisbonne.]

Et je suis un Marrane nordique ...

[Comme dit dans le titre : pas de la première génération.]

Chaine catholique du père Horovitz

@chainecatholiqueduperehoro6493

Et moi un prêtre catholique !

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@chainecatholiqueduperehoro6493 Je vous qualifie de Monsieur l'Abbé, même si vous n'ayez que la tonsure, mais quand à l'ordination, Pape Michel I n'as pas défini que les sacres épiscopales introduites par "Paul VI" soient valides.

Il a positivement défini que c'est le cas pour a) quelques Vieux-Catholiques (voir la définition de Pape Léon XIII), b) la lignée Duarte Costa, c) la lignée Thuc, d) la lignée Lefebvre, bien entendu pour le rite latin.

Petru Grandperret

@petrugrandperret7561

Sérieux, c'est quoi ces gens ? C'est pour faire mumuse ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@petrugrandperret7561 Non, je note juste que je suis "de familya konversa" comme on dirait en Djudezmo ... en partie.

Majoritairement Suédois, quand même.

Par contre, pas d'Espagne ou de Portugal, mais des Pays Nordiques. Ou Scandinaves.

Petru Grandperret

@hglundahl très bien concernant votre famille. Mais c'est quoi vos histoires de pape Michel 1 qui ne reconnaît pas tel ou tel sacrement ??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@petrugrandperret7561 En 1989, un ex-séminariste de Winona considérait que si Mgr Lefebvre avait raison sur les défaillances pour les sacraments en forme de "Paul VI", alors il ne pouvait pas être pape et si on n'avait pas de pape, il en fallait élire un.

Il a essayé de convoquer des évêques sédévacantistes pour l'élection, en fin très peu sont venus, et il a été élu, prenant le nom Michel. En 2011 il est ordiné prêtre et sacré évêque par un Bob Bjarnesen et encore un évêque auparavant vagante, et en 2022 il meurt, un an plus tard ou presque, son successeur est élu.

@petrugrandperret7561 Voici pape Michel II:

CORONATION OF POPE MICHAEL II
Pope Michael II | 12 Nov. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMRj2QJAXcg

3:04 l'abbé Cékada aucune compétence ?

Comme ex- d'Écône il devrait quand même avoir une compétence qui remonte, via Mgr Lefebvre à l'abbé Libermann, non ?

3:33 Tant que je sache, le rite pris a été celui pour un archevêque oriental, qui était déjà évêque, donc c'est un sacrementel supplémentaire du sacrement de l'ordre, ce n'est pas le sacre essentiellement ordination d'un évêque.

4:30 Parmi les quinze hérésies que vous venez de débunker en tant que telles, avez vous celle-ci, au numéro 5 ?

Les écoles doivent recevoir une éducation sexuelle GE : 1

Verbatim de Gravissimum Educationis :

Qu’ils bénéficient d’une éducation sexuelle à la fois positive et prudente au fur et à mesure qu’ils grandissent.

C'est très facile qu'une éducation sexuelle en classe censée être prudente devienne imprudente, non ?

Et un peu avant ?

Tous les hommes de n’importe quelle race, âge ou condition, possèdent, en tant qu’ils jouissent de la dignité de personne, un droit inaliénable à une éducation [5] qui réponde à leur vocation propre [6], soit conforme à leur tempérament, à la différence des sexes, à la culture et aux traditions nationales, en même temps qu’ouverte aux échanges fraternels avec les autres peuples pour favoriser l’unité véritable et la paix dans le monde.

Pris à la lettre ça n'exclue pas totalement la scolarité à maison, car Notre Seigneur était contrairement à des Juifs plus tard (depuis Josué ben Gamla, successeur de Hanan ben Hanan, celui qui fit martyriser St. Jacques, dont j'ai fait le chemin) un "home-schooler" ... ce que certains Pharisiens érigeaient en grief contre Lui.

Mais pris avec une certaine largeur, ça peut malheureusement vouloir dire un droit opposable vis-à-vis les présumées insuffisances des parents, sans de tenir compte comment la scolarité publique n'est de fait pas si ouverte à toutes les échanges fraternelles. Donc, en pratique, le document doit avoir trop souvent servi comme soutien à un certain point de vue du Manifeste Communiste :

Nous reprochez-vous de vouloir abolir l’exploitation des enfants par leurs parents ? Nous avouons le crime.

Mais nous brisons, dites-vous, les liens les plus sacrés, en substituant à l’éducation de famille, l’éducation sociale.

Et votre éducation à vous, n’est-elle pas, elle aussi, déterminée par la société ? Par les conditions sociales dans lesquelles vous élevez vos enfants, par l’intervention directe ou indirecte de la société à l’aide des écoles, etc. ? Les communistes n’inventent pas cette ingérence de la société dans l’éducation, ils ne cherchent qu’à en changer le caractère et à arracher l’éducation à l’influence de la classe régnante.

Dans la scolarité à maison, l'influence de la société n'est pas absente, mais filtrée par la jugeote d'une personne sur laquelle Dieu a dit "tu honoreras TON père et TA mère" ...

Ma mère ne m'a pas permi de voire La Planète des Singes, par exemple.

et à arracher l’éducation à l’influence de la classe régnante.

Ils voulaient dire "à la classe aujourd'hui régnante" ... ils n'ont pas pu faire ceci sauf en se substituant à celle-ci en tant que telle.

5:34 Pour le feu pape Michel I, Fraternité St. Pierre était mieux que FSSPX et mieux que le sédévacantisme en tant qu'il fait un effort d'accepter et d'obéir un pape.

Entre 2013 et cette année, il y a eu beaucoup pour qui ce n'était pas difficile d'ajouter "hélas, pas le bon" ...

Davantage de contenu dans ce format (lien vers youtube, reprenant les commentaires que j'ai posés en dessous,éventuellement des échanges en commentaires) sur : Répliques Assorties https://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/

Pope Michael I Liked ...

Mathematics
and
Ember Days.

This year, π day is on Ember Friday./HGL

We calculated pi with colliding blocks
Stand-up Maths | 13 March 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlUTlbZT4ig

Open Letter to Phil Friedl

I have heard of you back when you were a Seminarian under Pope Michael I.

I am now your friend on FB. Your statuses often enough read like quotes from books of devotion. There is a clear sense in which there is truth to them.

Prayer detaches the soul from this world. He who loves the world will never pray. He who hates this world prays and sees the world's true folly. Just as a mirage offers water where there only a desert, the world offers happiness, but it only give you sorrow.

Fidelity to prayer is the health of the soul.

When you are tired, learn to rest, and not to quit.

"They blessed with their mouth, but cursed with their heart" (Psalm 61:5)

The issue of this open letter is actually NOT to be blessing with my mouth.

You see, there are truths which it costs nothing to pay attention to, unless it's the wrong moment. Calculate the equivalence of 3 sqd and 4 sqd with 5 sqd anytime you like, unless it distracts you from prayer or from the steering wheel. Or a sharp farm tool ... you know what I mean.

There are other truths which are emotionally harrowing, but still necessary and cannot be put off to after one dies. If you have committed one clear mortal sin with no mitigating circumstances, after your baptism, you had better confess to a priest or do an act of Perfect Contrition. Or, if you have not admitted Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, if you have not admitted that He is also the promised Messiah, you had better do that too. Whatever the emotional cost. And to some it is high.

But there are also truths that are useful when you are attentive, but actually kind of optional. These are the truths in books of devotion. Like the things quoted that are not Psalm 61:5. Obviously any given one of them can cease to be optional if your father confessor imposes on you to attend to it, but apart from that, they are optional to attend to. Especially, being reminded of the necessity of prayer, when you are in a situation depriving you of the necessary peace for prayer is unnecessary harrowing.

The point is not to unfriend you. You are free to unfriend me. The point is, I'm asking, when you pray for me, as I am sure you do, WHAT THINGS are you praying for? Specifically, I would not want to be prayed for in the hope of me becoming a priest or monk.

You see, I had fidelity to prayer up to concluding someone else's prayer, stronger than mine, was abusing my prayer as a weapon against my preference for marriage. As a weapon against my efforts to get sufficiently known to earn my living from my writing, the day someone starts a publishing house in order to both spread the things I had to say, useful enough in apologetics (and therefore to get people to admit mortal sin leads to an eternity of fire, or Jesus is the promised Messiah), as a weapon against that too.

The Church is always praying. But every single member of the Church isn't praying 24/24, 365/365. The Church is not meant to consist exclusively of monks and nuns. It conceivably could do so for some time (Monseigneur Lefèbvre once mentioned, I think, the theory that the Church could be reduced to one single person if he was a bishop, Pope Michael I quoted the OT prophecy about a small child being able to count the remainder of the Church, and I think he thougfht that fulfilled the day he was elected, so, the Church could be so few that it contained no laymen ... though actually on that day, prior to election and acceptance, it contained only laymen ... unless the Church survived somewhere else, if obscured). But once it has a certain size, it is certain that it will contain people who are NOT monks or nuns or dedicate every day to prayer.

I prayed the Rosary every day when I was a parishioner in St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, as I recall, or there were few exceptions. But I quit that parish, because I was morally certain the priests were not praying for, but against my earthly happiness. There are some who, in order to pray, need a glass of water first. And there are some who, in order to pray, need some of the good things of this world. Wanting a young wife is not just wanting beauty, which is fleeting, it is also wanting fertility and proles primum bonum matrimonii. Wanting to be known as an author is not only, in fact not even, wanting to bask in the kind of fame that a Hollywood actor or a popular singer enjoys. It's also wanting to be sufficiently known to do some good with one's work, and to "do good" in the business sense so one's work also feeds oneself and one's family.

I would like to know that by "learn to rest, not to quit" is not sth you apply to me in the sense of YOUR project for me to be principally a prayer warrior. Let's go back to fidelity to prayer, a bit.

I have run the way of thy commandments, when thou didst enlarge my heart. Psalms 118:32

This was in fact the case, back when I was a parishioner in St. Nicolas du Chardonnet (apart from its basically Eastern Orthodox view on the Papacy's nature, but this was just after my return from these), I did hope to marry and to get an edition of my writings or a performance of my compositions within the year, and I did pray the rosary and I did forgive my enemies. It took me perhaps a quarter of an hour to forgive an especially mean thing. And to pray an our father or a rosary and include them.

What brought me away from that is, someone was praying for me to be basically a monk, which I did not want, and do not want. Monks can live in poverty and therefore also without the fame of authorship and they regularly live without wives and children. That was not what I wanted or want. It was not what I think God was calling me to. For some reason, God was momentarily hearing the prayers of someone else, against mine, I was looking for ways to arrange that. Including and up to quitting the rosary so that St. Nicolas priests couldn't be heard when praying I get the grace of perfect chastity through the rosary. Bad move? Probably. But their prayers for my worldly continued destitution drove me to it. Perhaps, my quitting the rosary was God hearing their prayers, with the rosary, I would have obtained what they didn't want me to obtain.

Anyway, if Pope Michael II wants to concentrate on prayer and devotionals, it is certainly, within limits his right. But 300 (or however many we are by now) true Catholics won't save all the other souls by prayer only and neglecting apologetics. If Pope Michael II wants to shoehorn all Conclavists into prayer and devotion only, no apologetics, no worldly success, it is probable, what he wants to be head of is not the Catholic Church. You can have a Catholic Church (apart from when it's very small, like five people) with thirty-fold, sixty-fold, hundred-fold fruit. You cannot have a Catholic Church even the size of 300 people that's hundred-fold, hundred-fold, hundred-fold only. A lay apologist (and there were such from Justin Martyr) is helping the Pope and the Bishops to these ends:

Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine
[2 Timothy 4:2]

Did you catch the nuance? Preaching the word is in season out of season, but rebuking and reproving is in patience.

For this they are wilfully ignorant of, that the heavens were before, and the earth out of water, and through water, consisting by the word of God Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of the ungodly men
[2 Peter 3:5-7]

One of the most principal things I've done since the very first I was on the internet, or maybe weeks only before starting, way before I had this blogger account, was to write in defense of this truth. It could have been used. Pope Michael I was not obliged to be the sole paper published author in the Conclavist community. 1684 + 1099 = 2783 words, directly from the first pope. The Greek NT has 138,150 words. The first Pope wrote 2 % of the New Testament. Or, if you add in St. Mark, 11,304 words, that makes 10 %. Even more, a Pope has no right to peevishly look at his own success in self publishing via Amazon and then imagine this is the measure above which no one of the Catholics subject to him may reach. I told Pope Michael I, he should have tried to start a publishing house, with a Vatican in Exile goes a Libreria Editrice Vaticana in Exile, he would have been able to secure a much better success for the booklet he republished with nine papal condemnations on Heliocentrism. And he would have been able to print lots of the devotional books you are quoting (unless TAN Books have exclusive rights under US Copyright, they shouldn't have, the authors are long since dead, new translations could be made). And he could incidentally also have secured me a beginning of the income I want. He was master of his time of course ... until God was. He was suspicious of alcohol, I believe, and got a stroke one month before he died. I think the day he died he had opportunity to see some things about me in another perspective, an abcess was healed the same day. Not miraculously, but I was using alcohol to rince and blue cheese as penicilline. He prayed one prayer he hadn't prayed for me when alive. May I suggest yourself and his successor, feliciter regnanti Michael II, not to repeat the delay?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
IVth Lord's Day after Epiphany
9.II.2025

Recent Pope vs Supposed Pope

I've done this in a presentation I have two stick figures 9:48 I call them James and John now James worships 9:53 one God and John might worship a different God but they're both monotheists 9:58 and so if James and John both worship the same God then either both worship the true God or 10:05 both worship a false god (right man) if James and John worship two 10:11 different gods we worship God the Father Son and Holy Ghost Muslims worship Allah which is 10:19 translating English would be God but it's a different God because they reject specifically the Trinity 10:25 so if you have two monotheists only one of them can worship the true 10:32 God now both of them could also worship false gods because we have this false idea that if you're a monotheist we all 10:40 worship the same God and it's just simply not true

Said by the late Pope Michael I in this interview:

Pontifacts Interview with Pope Michael
Pontifacts Podcast | 2 Oct. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ0CYtplMnQ

I think you know what supposed "pope" was saying something very different recently in the news, I don't think I have to even say his name or supposed "papal name" .../HGL

Habemus Papam

Rogelio Martínez was elected in Vienna, and accepted on July 29, the day of St. Olaf of Norway.

He took the name Michael II.

Source:
Vatican in Exile : The Olive Tree : August 2023
https://www.vaticaninexile.com/august_2023_olive_tree.php

Quelle Messe ?

Le couple Weidert

« La fin des messes d’autre “foi”, une chance pour le Christ ! »
tribune, Aline Weidert, Alain Weidert, La Croix le 10/02/2022 à 18:06
https://www.la-croix.com/Debats/fin-messes-dautre-foi-chance-Christ-2022-02-10-1201199636

Abbé Nicolas Cadiet

La messe de “La Croix”, une messe d’autre “foi” ?
25 JUILLET, 2023, PROVENANCE: FSSPX.NEWS
https://fsspx.news/fr/news-events/news/la-messe-de-la-croix-une-messe-autre-foi-84302

Le feu Pape Michel

célébrait selon les livres antérieurs à 1962, et ceci en anglais, traduction qu'il autorisa, sans doute traduction déjà faite pour des missels de fidèles.

Donc, il prit, sur cette question, la partie de l'Abbé Nicolas Cadiet.

An Attack on Pope Michael

True Saint : Pope Michael (David Bawden) Beliefs, Heresies and Practices Exposed (vaticaninexile.com)
http://www.trusaint.com/pope-michael-david-bawden/

I will deal only with the list of three impediments here.

David Bawden (aka Pope Michael) pre-election impediments

• Denied the necessity of apostolic succession for valid election; was not a priest at all prior to election (and is not a licit priest after his ordination). Remember, Bawden claimed his Papacy began on July 16, 1990; and he was never ordained priest during all this time. It is claimed that he was ordained valid priest first on December 9th, 2011, and consecrated the following day by an Old Catholic bishop, whom Bawden claimed to have reconciled to the Church [his own Church?].
  
  
• Denied the Church’s Divine law teaching that valid election can not be effected without the approval of lawful “ecclesiastical and canonical authority” (Council of Trent, Session 23, Canon 7, Denzinger 967).
  
  
• Denied the teaching of Pope Pius XII's "Six ans se sont" concerning the inability of laymen elected pope (by the proper ecclesiastical authority) to accept the election unless and until they are determined by positive proofs to be fit for ordination and free of any impediments.

Let's take them one by one.

Denied the necessity of apostolic succession for valid election; was not a priest at all prior to election (and is not a licit priest after his ordination).

It is not necessary. See here :

Φιλολoγικά / Philologica : Popes elected while not yet bishops :
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2015/08/popes-elected-while-not-yet-bishops.html

Remember, Bawden claimed his Papacy began on July 16, 1990; and he was never ordained priest during all this time. It is claimed that he was ordained valid priest first on December 9th, 2011, and consecrated the following day by an Old Catholic bishop, whom Bawden claimed to have reconciled to the Church [his own Church?].

Yes. A record long waiting time for ordination and consecreation after Papal election.

Denied the Church’s Divine law teaching that valid election can not be effected without the approval of lawful “ecclesiastical and canonical authority” (Council of Trent, Session 23, Canon 7, Denzinger 967).

Here is the actual canon:

Can. 7. If anyone says that the bishops are not superior to priests; or that they do not have the power to confirm and to ordain, or, that the power which they have is common to them and to the priests; or that orders conferred by them without the consent or call of the people or of the secular power are invalid, or, that those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema [cf. n. 960].

I see it as number 6 here:

THE TRUE AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, TOUCHING THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER, DECREED AND PUBLISHED BY THE HOLY SYNOD OF TRENT, IN THE SEVENTH SESSION, IN CONDEMNATION OF THE ERRORS OF OUR TIME (Session 23)
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch23.htm

The canon says that you cannot have preachers and sacramental ministers outside a) the ordained or b) those otherwise sent by ecclesiastical authority. It doesn't say all the ordained have to be sent by ecclesiastical authority - as in the case of a Pope getting ordained after election, that's not the case. Now, why the thing about "sent" if so? Well, sometimes the ecclesial authorities allow someone to preach or administer some sacraments in some ways (pronounce marriages, distribute Communion from hosts consecrated by a priest) who are not clergy.

It doesn't say how ecclesiastical authority is restored on the papal level after a somewhat longer interregnum. So, this legislation doesn't say what Ville Hietanen thinks it says.

Denied the teaching of Pope Pius XII's "Six ans se sont" concerning the inability of laymen elected pope (by the proper ecclesiastical authority) to accept the election unless and until they are determined by positive proofs to be fit for ordination and free of any impediments.

Here is the actual reference:

Les premiers (Pape, Évêques et prêtres) appartiennent nécessairement au clergé ; si un laïc était élu Pape, il ne pourrait accepter l'élection qu'à condition d'être apte à recevoir l'ordination et disposé à se faire ordonner ; le pouvoir d'enseigner et de gouverner, ainsi que le charisme de l'infaillibilité, lui seraient accordés dès l'instant de son acceptation, même avant son ordination.

DISCOURS DU PAPE PIE XII AUX PARTICIPANTS AU IIe CONGRÈS MONDIAL DE L'APOSTOLAT DES LAÏCS*
Samedi 5 octobre 1957 (Discours de Pie XII)
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/fr/speeches/1957/documents/hf_p-xii_spe_19571005_apostolato-laici.html

My translation, since there is no English official version: The former (Pope, Bishops and Priests) necessarily belong to the clergy; if a layman were elected Pope, he could not accept the election other than if he were apt to receive ordination and disposed to get ordained; the power to teach and to govern, like the charism of infallibility, would fall on him from the moment he accepted, even before his ordination.

It doesn't say in the least that he would need to go through a vetting process about aptness, it says he would need to be apt (canonic age and unmarried) and willing (which Pope Michael was). As to more specific scrutinies about aptness, piety and so on, the fact of election by itself would be such a scrutinity. But if the layman either was, unknown to the electors, married or under 25, or intended to get married rather than to receive episcopal consecration, he could not accept the papacy.

I could (for the latter reason) not accept papacy if the heirs of Pope Michael elected me, but Pope Michael had no such impediments of disposition when accepting.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts Perpetua and Felicitas
6.III.2023

Isaias 9:6 - an OT comment on the Christmas event, why Christmas is Good News

Brought to you by the Vatican in Exile.

Isaias 9:6
For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.

Christmas Sunday: A Passage To Remember
vatican in exile | 26 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ve4_dXNfl8

Decrees of the Holy Office, in Common Form, Two Items

Item one, from Wikipedia:*

Galileo was found guilty, and the sentence of the Inquisition, issued on 22 June 1633, was in three essential parts:

• Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse, and detest" those opinions.
• He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition. On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.
• His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.

Item two, from Wikipedia:**

On August 8, 1949, Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani of the Holy Office sent a protocol letter to Archbishop Cushing on the meaning of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation), which Feeney refused to accept. This protocol, approved by the Pope on July 28, 1949 stated "(T)his dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Saviour gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church."

On October 25, 1952, Feeney received a letter from Cardinal Pizzardo, Secretary of the Holy Office, summoning the priest to Rome. Feeney replied to Cardinal Pizzardo requesting an explanation of the charges against him in order to prepare his defense as per canon 1723, but none was forthcoming. Petitions to Pope Pius XII went unanswered.

After Feeney repeatedly refused to reply to a summons to Rome to explain himself^{[citation needed]}, he was excommunicated on February 13, 1953 by the Holy See for persistent disobedience to legitimate church authority due to his refusal to comply. According to Cardinal John Wright, Pope Pius XII personally translated the edict into English.

A comment by the Dimond Brothers:

The Theological Status Of Geocentrism
11th Sept. 2011 | vaticancatholic.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY2k-iPvhuY

They are about midway through the video, where I resume the viewing after a long pause, before the time stamp 16:18, making the point that:

• if the Church in 1633 was not infallibly making a dogma of Geocentrism, at least they thought so at the time;
• if they were in fact doing so, the later Popes (a quote from Benedict XV seems to have been discussed in the part I heard way earlier) thought they hadn't;
• therefore the Church authorities in 1953 could have been wrong about the infallible status of the Feeney excommunication.

It may be mentioned two things:

• neither Pope Leo XIII, nor Pope Benedict XV, explicitly said the condemnation of non-Geocentrism was not binding;
• the one not speaking directly on the issue, the other only lightly touched on it in an obiter dictum.

One could conclude neither of them dared to actually oppose the decree from 1633, though they were providing opportunity to the faithful to believe themselves in obedience to the Church while opposing it. Their gambit on the issue may have been this: 1) in order to be Pope, I remain faithful, in order to remain faithful, I do not personally deviate from Geocentrism; 2) the faithful who misinterpret my words as actually allowing Geocentrism will be remaining faithful by their intended obedience.

And a third thing: Pope Michael upheld both the decree against Geocentrism, and the decree against Feeney.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Placidus and companions
5.X.2022
St. Bruno
6.X.2022

(Messanae, in Sicilia, natalis sanctorum Martyrum Placidi Monachi, e beati Benedicti Abbatis discipulis, et ejus fratrum Eutychii et Victorini, ac sororis eorum Flaviae Virginis, itemque Donati, Firmati Diaconi, Fausti et aliorum triginta Monachorum, qui omnes a Manucha pirata, pro Christi fide, necati sunt.)
In monasterio Turris, dioecesis Squillacensis, in Calabria, sancti Brunonis Confessoris, qui Ordinis Carthusianorum fuit Institutor.

Mach:
There are two ways of reconciling oneself with actuality: either one grows accustomed to the puzzles, and they trouble one no more,or one learns to understand them by the help of history and to consider them calmly from that point of view. (Understanding the issue by the help of history helped to bring me to Geoncentrism.)

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Trial_and_second_judgment,_1633
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Feeney

Forty Days Since His Holiness Died

I am writing this beforehand, this line on 19.VIII, and wondering - will there have been any proceeedings for the new conclave? Was he buried by his adherents and called Pope in the burial service?

Found this:
Funeral Sermon For My Friend
9th Aug 2022 | vatican in exile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqJ5EpOSvAY

And this:
June '22 Interview Of Pope Michael
6th July 2022 | vatican in exile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0UBHcNZu4U

It's probably more important./23.VIII.2022

For speakers of Pilipino:

Reflections For Daily Living: Lessons from Saint Ignacio de Loyola
22nd Aug 2022 | vatican in exile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-edrHxNngo

Added later./2.IX.2022

Even more, Fr. Francis Dominic reports on his death, Olive Tree August 2022:

Olive Tree : Update On The Death Of Pope Michael
Father Francis Dominic
Volume VII/Issue 5/August 2022
https://www.vaticaninexile.com/august_2022_olive_tree.php

Why did he not simply accept people like "Pope John II"? Here is a clue, from arguably before his conclave:

"They are teaching a brand new religion!"
21st Aug. 2022 | Catholic Family Podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQJ5nDUCJUo

Who will be the next Pope? We don't know yet. Some lines on this in The Olive Tree for September 2022:

The Olive Tree : September 2022
https://www.vaticaninexile.com/september_2022_olive_tree.php

HH Pope Michel - RIP

New blog on the kid : HH Pope Michel - RIP · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Condolances to the Vatican in Exile

His work - vivat.

Here is his lineage of consecration:

Summary of the position : Validity of the ordination of Pope Michael
http://pope-michael.com/old/pope-michael/summary-of-the-position/validity-of-the-ordination-and-consecration-of-pope-michael/

Answering the lawyer and sedevacantist "Introibo" blogger

Under this post:

Introibo Ad Altare Dei : Covering Up The Obvious
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2022/04/covering-up-obvious.html

Time signatures are copied from his blog's comment section and follow his time zone:

Hans Georg Lundahl

April 20, 2022 at 3:07 PM

What is your view of the idea, that marital age should be relowered to 14 / 12 (c. 50 % of each sex mature) as in most previous centuries, or at least to 16 / 14 (c. 95 %) as within 1917 code?

I mean, taking advantage of someone sexually mature is not technically speaking pedophilia, but taking advantage of is still evil and being taken advantage of is still bad for one.

A N D being forced by law to stay celibate for up to 6 years in most cases, and even more in rarer ones after you have your first sexual desires, is a kind of situation that opens up for grooming. Being instead married is a situation that makes one somewhat relatively speaking safer.

Obviously for it to work, one needs younger limits for going to work as well. If a boy of 14 marries a girl of 12 only when both have rich parents or are actors, it's too rare to really help.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

April 20, 2022 at 4:49 PM

Hans,
I think with the immaturity of most under 18, it is a bad idea. Here in the U.S., the vast amount of young marriages end in divorce. Getting jobs to support a family is another problem. For MOST marriages to be successful in this country, you need to be in your mid-20s.

God Bless,

—Introibo

Hans Georg Lundahl

April 21, 2022 at 2:21 AM

Isn't part of the problem a culture that expects a long "adolescence" as the word is seen in cultural terms?

Isn't part of that problem a culture that expects education to go on into the midtwenties?

While I was a teacher at a school, I enjoyed eating with the guy or the gal of a couple who were in eighth grade, or with both of them. They were polite, and I was hoping they were getting stabilised (not marriage, but like engagement, preparing for marriage) earlier than most.

Now, he was into Hip Hop, she into Classical music and ballet, both were still in an educational system encouraging each to be simply himself or herself rather than "limit oneself" in order to adapt to the other. I was angry to learn that they had broken up a few months after I left.

You also say "in this country" - as I recall, you are in New York. Before Clinton, there used to be different state limits for marital age going down as young as 12.

Before I came to that school, in 94 or early 95, there was a story in a girls' magazine (I had figured that not wanting to remain a bachelor, and having exhausted the possible love interests in my surrounding, and having little time to socialise, I'd be better prepared to meet girls by reading those, than by reading the kind of publications labelled "for men"), and the story said, a girl of 12 had been able to quit school, by marrying an old man. She wasn't discontent with the arrangement, but Bill Clinton had a gut feeling of disgust with the perversion of it ... and he promised this would never happen again (like Milosevic had promised Serbs, they would never again be thrown stones at by Albanians, in Kosovo). Limits were raised to 16 for both sexes, nation wide.

And a third : how is your argument not an argument to raise the marital age even more, to 25? Which would mean even more teens driven to fornication, pre-marital motherhood at extreme best (btw, the failed marriages might be childless ones, right?), sexual exploration leading up to perversion, sexual self disgust leading up to sex change, depression leading up to suicide?

You cannot make a law of the ideal of every one obeying it getting "above average" chances. You cannot have 100 % or approaching above average, you can only have up to 50 % above and equally up to 50 % below average, depending on how many are exactly at average.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

April 21, 2022 at 1:11 PM

Hans,
1. Yes, expecting a long "adolescence" is part of the problem but not likely to be resolved anytime soon. Part of the reason is the increased life expectancy. In 1917, at the time of the Code of Canon Law, life expectancy in the U.S. was 47. In 2021 it is 77. You "couldn't afford" to have a long "adolescence" so to speak. Here in NY (and almost all other states) to get a civil service job (cop, fireman, sanitation, teacher) requires a minimum age of 21. Hard to support yourself and a family as a clerk at a supermarket.

2. There is no Federal Marriage age. The states have always determined the age of marriage. 48 states have a minimum age of 18. Nebraska has a minimum age of 19, and Mississippi has a minimum age of 21. New York and six other states have an absolute prohibition on marriage between a minor and an adult. Minors can marry each other with parental consent or judicial decree. In all states the age never goes below the age of 15 with consent or decree, except for Massachusetts which has 12 as the minimum age—but there has been no so case of parent of judge allowing it below age 14 in that state.

Bill Clinton is a pervert and would not be "disgusted" by anything sexual. A good friend of Jeffery Epstein, he probably had a couple of 12 year olds—or younger. Despite attempts to link Trump to Epstein, trump never went on trips with Epstein—Clinton did.

3. As Aquinas taught, not every aspect of morality should be legislated. Hence, I would not advocate 25 as a marriage age by LAW but as COMMON SENSE. Some 18 year olds have successful marriages and most don't. I was a virgin until I married in my 40s. So please don't excuse sinful behavior as teens being "driven" to fornication. The adultery rates among those who marry early are high—were they "driven" to that too? Maybe an argument for polygamy?

God Bless,

—Introibo

2.

Hans Georg Lundahl

April 21, 2022 at 2:06 PM

1) "Hard to support yourself and a family as a clerk at a supermarket."

Minimum wages? I don't believe in federal ones, I believe in state by state ones, Alaska and Florida having different living expenses. But the point is, full time work should not be remunerated by wages too low to support children at least if your wife is also working.

2 "In all states the age never goes below the age of 15 with consent or decree, except for Massachusetts which has 12 as the minimum age—but there has been no so case of parent of judge allowing it below age 14 in that state."

In the case I read of, 12, SC.

3 "Some 18 year olds have successful marriages and most don't."

Is there a difference in favour of age disparity?

"I was a virgin until I married in my 40s."

I'm 53, unfortunately still both unmarried and virgin.

"The adultery rates among those who marry early are high—were they "driven" to that too?"

Was this not mostly the case among childless marriages? In that case an argument against having legal or easy to access contraceptives.

Here is about a mother who became so first time at 14:

DEVENIR MAMAN À L'ADOLESCENCE: un témoignage 🤰🏼 (questions/réponses)
16 avr. 2022 | AUDREY D.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydLUefJfD98

Unfortunately she promotes both abortion and adoption as being as valid options for a teen pregnancy, but she took a better one, herself, and she is at 28 as far as I can see still with the father of her first child.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

April 21, 2022 at 4:34 PM

Hans,

1."But the point is, full time work should not be remunerated by wages too low to support children at least if your wife is also working."

What you think SHOULD BE and WHAT IS THE CASE are two different things. That's not going to happen for many political reasons

2. "In the case I read of, 12, SC."

Hence, the term "fake news." IF true, it would be by a special bill passed by the South Carolina legislature and signed by the governor. How often will that happen?

3. "Is there a difference in favour of age disparity?" Yes, if an 18 year old woman marries a man ten years or more her senior. However, the difference is not that much better.

"I'm 53, unfortunately still both unmarried and virgin."

If you feel called to the married state and have not found someone, I can understand the disappointment of not being married. You should not feel unfortunate for having kept God's Law on no sex outside marriage. For that you should be rightfully proud.

"Was this not mostly the case among childless marriages? In that case an argument against having legal or easy to access contraceptives."

It was slightly higher among the childless—but NOT by much!

God Bless,

—Introibo

Hans Georg Lundahl

April 22, 2022 at 12:25 AM

"That's not going to happen for many political reasons"

Like Pope Pius XI being a nincompoop? Like Bernie being non-Catholic and pro-abortion?

The former is not how we speak about a true pope. The latter is accidental.

"Hence, the term "fake news." IF true, it would be by a special bill passed by the South Carolina legislature and signed by the governor. How often will that happen?"

My point is, back then it was legal in SC. It was Bill Clinton who raised it to at least 16 across the states, or tried to.

"Yes, if an 18 year old woman marries a man ten years or more her senior. However, the difference is not that much better."
"It was slightly higher among the childless—but NOT by much!"

This sounds marital statistics of the US are such that everyone is getting damned - unmarried because they mostly can't be chaste or can't without committing other sins, and married because they don't stay with spouses. So, if God requires of us to HOPE, this means we should feel some aloofness at least about those statistics.

"If you feel called to the married state and have not found someone, I can understand the disappointment of not being married."

I have found someone. I have not found conditions of for instance an income from my writings.

"You should not feel unfortunate for having kept God's Law on no sex outside marriage. For that you should be rightfully proud."

One can be proud and even so unfortunate. There is a cost. It was already years ago such, that I prayed to be either married or dead a year hence.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

April 22, 2022 at 9:04 PM

Hans,
"Like Pope Pius XI being a nincompoop? Like Bernie being non-Catholic and pro-abortion?

The former is not how we speak about a true pope. The latter is accidental."

Like the fact the U.S. is founded on Masonic principles—of course including "separation of Church and State."

"My point is, back then it was legal in SC. It was Bill Clinton who raised it to at least 16 across the states, or tried to."

Read what I wrote—IT WAS NOT LEGAL. It was a one-time bill to allow ONE EXCEPTION. The parents must have had plenty of political juice—if the story is true.

"One can be proud and even so unfortunate. There is a cost. It was already years ago such, that I prayed to be either married or dead a year hence."

How sad you felt that way. Not a Catholic response. God may be calling you to the single vocation which is most noble. A prayer like that basically says, "Either give me what I want or take my life—my way or else." I hope and pray you do not pray that way or feel that way anymore.

God Bless,

—Introibo

Hans Georg Lundahl

April 23, 2022 at 4:51 AM

OK, here is one thing.

It is not for you to decide if the response is Catholic or not, and if you are praying for a celibate vocattion, go to Hell.

We are not in communion. Anyone who has prayed that for me has been my enemy over years, and if God has heard them, it is a trap, by which I have been disabled to pray correctly myself.

I prefer you going to Hell over myself going to Hell because of your blindness!

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

April 23, 2022 at 12:12 PM

Hans,
I can absolutely decide if a response is Catholic, just as I can decide that Bergoglio is not Catholic—all based on Catholic teaching.

Yes, we are not in communion because you follow a mental patient with delusions of grandeur as "Pope" Michael. I haven't seen your writings on your "pope's" website; why is that?

It is Catholic teaching that we must all conform ourselves to the Will of God, even when it's something we don't like. I pray for you to do the Will of God, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE. Very Catholic.

I have tolerated your comments and responded in charity for a long time—even as you follow a false pope as a Conclavist.

Wishing people to "go to Hell" (myself or others) is a total lack of Catholic charity and sinful if you truly wish their damnation.

Your comments are no longer welcome here and will no longer be published on this blog. I pray for your conversion—and mental health.

May God Save You,

—Introibo

Answered

but he might not publish it

"It is Catholic teaching that we must all conform ourselves to the Will of God, even when it's something we don't like. I pray for you to do the Will of God, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE. Very Catholic."

You forget a detail. God may have condemned me to the evil consequences of your prayers because I didn't speak up sooner.

You forget another detail. We are free to ask for deliverance from evils. It was Job's right to hope God would set things right.

You forget a third detail. The terms of my prayer were used by St. Elijah. III Kings 19:4. And no, this does not mean I have the delusion of grandeur to take myself for Elijah. It means I believe the saints are case law in relation to the commands expressed being common law. In other words, praying to die is not rebellion against God's will, is not suicidal, and is not blasphemy. There is such a thing as being oppressed so hard one cannot stand. Even if I am confusing Exodus with a negro spiritual.

You pretend Pope Michael has delusions of grandeur. If he is under no kind of forced or accepted under durance therapy, you are slandering. If not, he may be "Petrus in vinculis" and I owe him loyalty beyond his deeds. All the evils I mentioned about him, are yours too and more directly.

"Wishing people to "go to Hell" (myself or others) is a total lack of Catholic charity and sinful if you truly wish their damnation."

I said I prefer you going to Hell over going there myself over your blindness.

If you wish to save your soul, stop praying evil prayers whether about me or about Pope Michael.

If your priest wishes to save his soul, and his bishop too, same for them.

If they do not, and you still wish to save your sould, same for you again, plus take your distance from them as from evildoers.

This was published,

without previous being so:

Anonymous

April 30, 2022 at 9:50 PM

Great. I always thought that he's a weirdo.

More clarifications, less urgent than my distance from his bad praying, and not answered to him, but presented to readers here:

"Like the fact the U.S. is founded on Masonic principles—of course including 'separation of Church and State.'"

Evil as that is, this misses that:
a) we are not called to resign to the evils of a state we live in, in a final manner, the Church before Constantine was not saying "we must accept some of us aborting";
b) all the world is not US;
c) "que será, será, whatever will be will be" - what is the good in pretending "there is no more a Catholic astrology than Catholic abortion" if you are worshipping Apollo the Delphic (and Apollo has in Greek five cases the sum total of 2666) by making predictions.

"Read what I wrote—IT WAS NOT LEGAL. It was a one-time bill to allow ONE EXCEPTION. The parents must have had plenty of political juice—if the story is true."

I am not obliged to take Introibo's word for it. He is based in NYC, if I got it correct, and may not be well aware of what was legal prior to Clinton in SC. And it's not over the top improbable a new limit was set more recently than 1994. I mean, France raised the limit from 18 / 15 (as it had been since Napoleon, I think) to 18 / 18 as recently as under Chirac, 2006. I recall it well, if I hadn't read that news, I would have tried to get back to a young teen going fifteen that year, among a chiourme of manouche whom I had lived among for a week or two the year before.

Also, he seems to feel shame at the suggestion - forgetting it was the Anticlerical Italy that oppressed the Papal States that turned the limit from 14 / 12 to 18 / 18, like Communist Tyrant Lenin (even more evil than Cavour) turned it from 15 / 13 to 18 / 18. This suggests he might make a white lie or if not be lying to himself, and if not that have been lied to about what was legal elsewhere, supposing his memory really goes as far back as 1994 in legal matters.

me : "I have not found conditions of for instance an income from my writings."
he : "I haven't seen your writings on your "pope's" website; why is that?"

For one thing, he has also found no condemnation of them.

And for another, a Catholic essayist does not have to appear on the website of the Vatican to be a Catholic essayist. Bergoglio's occupied Vatican is not publishing mirrors of Mark Shea's either books or blog posts, nor those of Jimmy Akin. FSSPX is not mirroring the book Ipsa Conteret by Heinz-Lothar Barth.

earlier : "Bill Clinton is a pervert and would not be "disgusted" by anything sexual."

I take it, the really uncurable homosexuals are not so for strong attraction to own sex, but for strong disgust at sexuality promoting reproduction. Therefore, the implication is a non-sequitur. Also "be disgusted" can be used for "expressing disgust" which can be done hypocritically.

"I was a virgin until I married in my 40s. So please don't excuse sinful behavior as teens being "driven" to fornication. The adultery rates among those who marry early are high—were they "driven" to that too? Maybe an argument for polygamy?"

Non omnia possumus omnes. I was not excusing, nor not excusing. I was warning of consequences.

All are not long suffering virgin myself, all are not proud virgin till married at 40 Introibo, and the Apostle says:

[1 Timothy 4:1] Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, [2] Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, [3] Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth.

[1 Corinthians 7:2] But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

See, the Apostle maintains the same warning. For those citing he also said he that does not marry off his daughter does better, for one thing he still says he who marries her off does well, and for another, that is in the context of virgin vocations. Something that modern schools and co-education make rarer.

Other thread, under same post, where he left me the last word:

Anonymous

April 20, 2022 at 6:56 PM

Doesn't the Holy Bible state homosexuality being a punishment for Apostasy+ Idolatry?
-Andrew

Hans Georg Lundahl

April 21, 2022 at 2:25 AM

My thoughts exactly, after a certain idea, preliminarily not dis-promoted by Pius XII, namely Adam having non-human direct ancestry in the immediately previous generation, objectively involving God committing heavy child abuse on Adam by raising him as a feral child or getting around it in other non-ideal ways, undeserved before he had sinned, why would God not deliver such guys who believe that up to a homosexuality involving precisely child abuse?

Since then, lots have turned over to more "classic" homosexuality, as the apostasy has shifted to saying Adam's parents weren't totally non-human, as Jimmy Akin would arguably argue : this meaning simply that Adam was not the first man, and his position couldn't reasonably be such as to give all of mankind miseries for a sin of someone basically just a nominal figurehead.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

April 21, 2022 at 1:24 PM

Andrew,
According to theologian Haydock, God withdrew His Grace from those who did not recognize Him from creation and worshipped idols. [An idol is anything we exalt above the True God. The First Commandment does not say, "Thou shalt not be an atheist," but rather, "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me." Drugs, money, sex, are all substitute "gods" for many].

(See "Catholic Commentary on the New Testament" pg. 1479).

God Bless,

—Introibo

Hans Georg Lundahl

April 21, 2022 at 2:29 PM

"anything we exalt above the True God."

Including a false image of God.

Above was referred to

under a video by E. Michael Jones, who deleted it./HGL, 25.IV.2022

Added under first thread, 27.IV.2022:

It so happens, your way of marginalising me as Catholic and media provider is allowing others to actively martyrise me. It seems your colours of pastoral to me are purple (telling me to make penance) and scarlet (celebrating my martyrdom). No green, no white - and obviously no black for my suffering either.

Here is a nice little leopard head for you to ride on ... David Chord

Added, as possible new thread, 30.IV.2022:

Recall my words, including those you did not publish?

24.IV I published on my blog, 26.IV, bishop Dolan died unexpectedly.

Update, 2.I.2024:

"Pourtant, près de 300 000 mariages d’enfants ont été célébrés dans le pays entre 2000 et 2018. Plus de 80% étaient des filles, la plus jeune avait 10 ans, les maris étaient le plus souvent des adultes. Aux États-Unis, des mineures peuvent encore être mariées dans 40 États, soit les 4/5e du pays. Cinq états ne fixent même aucune limite d’âge, dont la Californie."

C. 300 000 "child marriages" between 2000 and 2018, 80 % of the minors (better term) are girls, of which the youngest was 10 years, the husbands were more often adults (or major, i e above 18 or 21). It's legal in 40 states, and 5 of them even fix no age at all, whereof California.

Introibo simply lied, or was obtuse, perhaps voluntarily./HGL

Sources for the citation:

États-Unis : ce pays qui marie ses enfants | ARTE Reportage
ARTE | 11 déc. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsR0SGChN2Q

Which I cite on:
Répliques Assorties : Notons, si en 1970 les filles qui sortaient du lycée avec un bac américain étaient vierges, pas mal étaient déjà mariées ayant quitté le lycée sans bac ... https://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2023/12/notons-si-en-1970-les-filles-qui.html

No, my memory was good, Introibo was ignorant or dishonest./HGL

Bonum Festum Sanctae Luciae Virginis et Martyris

Christifidelibus lectoribus exopto.

Necnon memini heri decem iam esse annos quod sit episcopus papa noster Michael.

Ille autem haud vellet nos oblitos esse dierum quattuor temporum : dies quarta, dies sexta, dies sabbati nobis imperant ieiunare.

I wish the faithful Christian readers a good feast of St. Lucy, Virgin and Martyr.

I also recall that yesterday it was ten years that our Pope Michael had been bishop.

But he would hardly want us to forget the Ember Days : Wednesday, Friday, Saturday order us to fast.

Une bonne fête de Ste Lucie, Vierge et Martyr, aux lecteurs fidèles Chrétiens.

J'évoque aussi qu'hier il était dix ans que notre Pape Michel soit évêque.

Mais lui, il n'aimerait pas qu'on oublie les jours de Quatre Temps : mercredi, vendredi, samedi nous appellent au jeûne./HGL

"Allez à l'église"

Si on voudra me revoir à St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, voici mes conditions, d'abord ecclesiastiques :

• soumission à Pape Michel
• qu'il aura validé les ordres de la ligne Lefèbvre ensemble avec la ligne Thuc (pour l'instant il considère les deux douteux faute de décision par lui) ou qu'il aura arrangé des ordres valides à son gré
• et qu'il aura donc autorisé les fidèles à assister à la messe à St. Nicolas du Chardonnet.

Il se pourrait bien entendu que ça se passe comme ça avec un prêtre ou même évêque unié oriental (il doit son sacre épiscopal à un évêque auparavant vagant du rite ukrainien).

Et, ensuite, une condition personnelle : quelle que soit la paroisse, qu'elle ne me fasse pas le coup de sympathiser avec ma personne d'sdf et en même temps bloquer mordicus ma personne d'écrivain. J'écris sur le web depuis 2001. J'ai fait de beaux études en lithuanien et polonais (rouillé dans les deux langues hélas) avec histoire culturelle de la Lithuanie et des trois Pays Baltiques avant d'être obligé pour une cause administrative et ce n'était pas un échec d'études, à quitter mon appartement et mes études en mars 2004. Mon latin médiéval n'est pas si rouillé que ça, je sais lire St. Thomas et l'évêque Tempier dans le texte.

Je n'ai pas à me mettre en communion avec des fourbes qui voudraient que je m'assume comme un déclassé et donc renonce à être écrivain. Je n'ai pas à être en communion ecclésiastique avec un prêtre dont la simple communion de charité fait défaut jusqu'à perdre la justice élémentaire. Oui, même la justice élémentaire. Discerne causam meam a gente non sancta - si je voudrait que Dieu m'entende là-dessus, je ne peux pas me permettre de me rendre à cette gentem non sanctam.

Et ceci compte également si leur plan était de m'offrir la vie monastique ou même comme prêtre - j'ai accepté quand Sainte Madeleine du Barroux trancha au négatif en 1999 ou plutôt tôt en 2000. Ce n'était pas ma préférence par enthousiasme la plupart du temps avant ça non plus. Le célibat est bon, mais pas pour moi.

Il y a des gens qui s'absentent de la Messe parce qu'ils ont perdu la foi dans la Présence Réelle ou le Sacrifice de la Messe. J'ai déjà dit, plus qu'une fois, que ceci n'est pas mon cas.

Par contre, en théorie on pourrait améliorer les relations humaines malgré cette coupure canonique, genre, en éditant des textes par moi en forme papier et donc payante, et que je commence à vivre de ça. St. Nicolas du Chardonnet voudra pas éditer des textes en faveur de Pape Michel? La plupart des miens ne le concernent pas (directement, comme sujet, il y a qui le concerne comme juge de la théologie, bien entendu), je n'ai pas effacé ce que j'ai écrit avant d'adhérer à lui.

Mais, pour ce qui concerne la théologie, il voudra donner son imprimatur. Il y a u tellement d'arrangements entre FSSPX et sédévacantistes en France, pourquoi pas un avec Pape Michel, alors? Ça dit, s'il voudra insister que je n'aurais pas le droit de les avoir publiés chez des gens qui lui refusent le droit de faire un imprimatur, je ne suis pas suicidaire. Mes conditions datent d'avant mon adhésion à lui, il y a sept ans, et prévoyaient la possibilité d'une embrouille quant à la bonne obéissance à avoir. Donc, quiconque veut, peut les republier en papier. Et il y a d'autres qui sont de type culturelle ou biographique ou politique, où la question d'imprimatur ne se pose pas coutumièrement.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ste Gertrude
16.XI.2021

Pour contacter Pape Michel, il faut s'adresser à lui en anglais ou espagnol, voici son site :

Vatican In Exile
https://www.vaticaninexile.com/

Si quelqu'un me prétend "contre le Vatican" ...

... va-t-il dire aussi que de Gaulle en 1940 était "contre la France"?

On peu considérer que Pétain ne représentait pas la France correctement, ou on peut considérer qu'il le faisait, mais prétendre que de Gaulle représentait rien qu'une agression anglaise contre la France serait parodique.

Quiconque refuse anti-pape Bergoglio parce que pape, parce que successeur d'Alexandre VI ou d'Innocent III, c'est quelqu'un qui est contre le Vatican. Mais qui le refuse parce que non pape, parce qu'anti-pape, parce qu'il n'est pas en continuité doctrinale avec Alexandre VI ou Innocent III, il y a d'autres mots qui conviennent mieux.

Et le bon mot pour moi, ce n'est pas "sédévacantiste" mais "conclaviste". Sur la différence, voir:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Introibo's Latest Answer Deserves Some Philology
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2020/10/introibos-latest-answer-deserves-some.html

J'ai demandé à Pape Michel si je pouvait me confesser à l'Abbé Aulaigner (vrai prêtre, car ordiné par Mgr Lefèbvre, pas l'eprit de l'indépendance de ce dernier car reconcilié avec Rome moderniste) et aller à la Messe chez les Sédévacantistes (qui à défaut de ne pas dire "una cum papa nostro Michael" au moins ne disent pas "una cum papa nostro Francisco").

Sa réponse était négative. Ma vie sans messe est en obéissance à soit le vrai pape, au pire au moins un évêque qui célèbre la messe depuis son ordination, samedi la veille du dimanche Gaudete 2011. Il ne s'agit nullement de mépriser la sainte Messe comme telle./HGL

Is Compilation of Essays a Valid Form?

I'll let TFP answer this one:

Should they claim :

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property®—TFP®.

Then I claim : Fair Use.

Now, if you are interested in where this is from, here you go:

https://www.tfp.org/can-documents-of-the-magisterium-of-the-church-contain-errors-can-the-catholic-faithful-resist-them/

On your own risk, as it is arguably condemned by Pope Michael.

(And as just said, no one owes "Pope Francis" religious obedience when he "decides" a question not even when he is referring to his "Papal predecessors" - since David Bawden was elected in 1990 and took the name Michael).

However, this was not the question. The question is rather, is compilation of essays a valid form?

Well, yes. See the screenshot./HGL

Mark Shea* at Not Too Bad

I think it is very wise to be careful of lay Catholic apologists (pause for irony to sink in).

I somehow missed the irony.

Essentially, you are dealing with people who may or may not have a charism, may or may not know what they are talking about, and may or may not be stable, orthodox, bright, honest, etc.

That is the case with some clergy too. I recall one Robert Barron (if you know the name) balking at Young Earth Creationism, because such Creationism:

• A) is not binding dogma (take a look at a certain paragraph in Humani Generis and reflect on whether it considers one must bow down to a future decision of the Church or the decision could be a past one, like Trent on Patristic consensus being binding)
• B) makes the faith look ridiculous to Bill Maher ...

Come on! Caving in to Bill Maher is ridiculous! He bought that Zeitgeist stuff about December 25 being birth of a dying and resurrecting god for a millennium before Christ - when in fact outside Rome there was no such thing as "December" and Pagan Roman feasts prior to Aurelian (that is AD 200's or sth, I think after Decius) not falling on December 25th. And some other ridiculous stuff too.
Let's document the points on Bill Maher first, and starting that his film Religulous has got a clip release here:

The two best points made in Bill Maher's film "Religulous " (2008)
RRoocckkyy50 | 5.IV.2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHPZRChdvlQ

The two points were his scoffing at Creationism and ... his Zeutgeist stuff. Here I answer it, just in case my comments under the video are no longer on top when you look:

Bill Maher at His Most Religulous ....
on Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere | Friday, January 12, 2018
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/01/bill-maher-at-his-most-religulous.html

I made the claim there was no December 25 outside Rome for most of the time when Bill Maher and his Zeitgeist buddies thought there was, here I give details:

On BC Dates as per BC Dating (quora)
on Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere | Thursday, January 25, 2018, updated next day
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/01/on-bc-dates-as-per-bc-dating-quora.html

So, if sth makes for Bill Maher laughing, what does that even mean?

Some crook is said to have said, "oderint, dum metuant" or let them hate, as long as they fear. I think a Christian Apologist can afford to say the opposite "rideant, dum cogitent" - let them laugh, as long as they reflect. That doesn't mean one has to be extra meak when one meets real vitriol (as has happened to me once in a while, one can show that vitriol merits rebuke, even one which may be taken as vitriolic). But in confronting the normal kind of debater one can afford a "rideant, dum cogitent" attitude. I don't do that live, since too tired, but online, often a spelled out guffaw, like "lol" or "rotfl" can get on occasion, "enjoy, you might need it".

There is, as a priest friend used to point out, no office of apologist in the Church.

Excellent. This means, it is for volunteers, except of course such who become un-orthodox. And the volunteers may be laymen as often as priests. St Justin was the first Christian apologist well known as primarily such (I think he was before Tertullian and Origen?) and he was a layman.

You do not need ordination to do apologetics. You also do not need to be a prophet to do apologetics.

Apologetics is the handmaid of evangelism.

Fair enough.

Means among other things, as providing the handmaid service, I don't need to have the personal qualities of an evangelist. Bringing souls to Christ is "above my paygrade", usually. An Apologist may coincide with an Evangelist, for some particular soul, but an Apologist could do so very well without the usual qualities of an Evangelist as asked by the Church. Precisely because it is providential if this happens, not planned by the Church, except insofar as these days Evangelists may need some Apologetics skills, and are supposed to have them. The rest of the Apologists are their arsenal, not main actors.

Some Evangelists could set about with too little Apologetics skills. They could even get irritable about Apologetics.

"Well, if I bring up Hell threatening them and they don't convert, aren't they really asking for damnation?"

These days, no. These days, they usually also need to be able to show Hell is fair for mortal sinners and that it is not about venial sins and that unbelief can be a mortal sin and not just a disability - the latter being where they need to be Apologists.

Other Evangelist: "well, why do you spoil the souls I try to save by showing Catholicism isn't precluding you believe in Evolution?"

Well, for one thing, some I meet are very little inclined to take your option. They are Atheist and Evolution believing Apologists. They know how much the Bible conflicts with Evolution and usually know from history how recent and ad hoc your approach is.

For another, if you find a soul who is like that, go for it and don't bother about me or my stuff. And leave other souls to other Evangelists who do have use for my stuff. One trait of FSSPX which I find less attractive is, they are sure:

• Élites must convert before the rest will do so;
• this must usually mean the already existing élite or sometimes reactionary counter-élite;
• knowing these, evolution criticism won't work;
• Creationism might just be good enough as an outreach to Radical Protestants, and should then of course be starting point or common ground, arguing Creationism to those not believing it is counterproductive;
• because they are the élite, they know the élite, they know what there is to know according to the élite and the élite is right about it unless it is contrary to dogma (élite sometimes here standing for some counter-élite).

That the French system of education could have been wrong for decades before the Red domination, like in Pétain or Colonial times ... perish the thought.

I am sorry if I here am risking a bit of pseudo-empathy. I have not got this in so many words from one single FSSPX either faithful or clergy or religious. I have sent many mails to St. Nicolas du Chardonnet on which I have received no answers (a bit like certain mail to one Mark P. Shea, you might know), so, I am in part guessing. I am guessing by empathy and this means my empethetic guess might be wrong. This state of affairs is what I refer to as pseudo-empathy.

I just saw, I had forgotten to document Robert Barron, according to some then Father and now a Bishop, actually is caving in to Bill Maher on Creationism.

But, in fact, he is, and here is his video from than and here is my response under it:

Fr. Robert Barron on Bill Maher and Biblical Interpretation
Bishop Robert Barron
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGDDKlXl488

Sorry, seems he was already promoted to "his" see back then.

In fact, his stance against Young Earth Creationism could be useful in Macriana - if it is in Morocco, I couldn't find it even on Orbis Latinus - since King Mohammed VI is promoting Old Earth, the Coran having no beef with that. His scientists recently promoted oldest Homo Sapiens as 300,000 years old, good luck squaring that with Adam and Eve (as per Humani Generis) without becoming "racist" in extreme chronological snobbery (I have a horror for one of the solutions). However if Macriana is more like in Tunisia, not sure Barron will be as well served by Old Earth outreach.

Here is my response:

... against false sophistication of the Robber Baron of Theology
on Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere | Sunday, March 27, 2016
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/03/against-false-sophistication-of-robber.html

So, where were we ... Apologetics is the handmaid of Evangelism.

If you propose the gospel and somebody says, “Right! Makes sense!” you don’t need apologetics.

Wonderful, agreed.

Apologetics is just for clearing roadblocks. If you build your life around it, it can become an idol.

Or a pensum. Look at Gilbert Keith Chesterton and at Clive Staples Lewis.

And if you start thinking your mission is to correct the Magisterium, the milk has surely started to sour.

That is why I am leaving Magisterial decisions to Pope Michael (except where I cringe at what seems to be clumsy pastoral and being the kind of Evangelist who only evangelises those already Christian). (Obviously, I have a greater problem with those presuming everyone's culture, whether Christian or Pagan, has to be modern as Bill Maher). Wait ... were you referring to "Pope Francis" as the Magisterium?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. John Chrysostomus**
27.I.2018

* A short conversation about lay Catholic apologists
January 26, 2018 by Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2018/01/short-conversation-lay-catholic-apologists.html

** Sancti Joannis Chrysostomi, Episcopi Constantinopolitani, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, caelestis Oratorum sacrorum Patroni; qui decimo octavo Kalendas Octobris obdormivit in Domino. Ejus sacrum corpus, sub Theodosio juniore, hac die Constantinopolim, inde postea Romam translatum fuit, et in Basilica Principis Apostolorum conditum.