Debate with Introibo

His original post, under which the debate took place:

Introibo Ad Altare Dei: Una Cum
Posted by Introibo Ad Altare Dei at 3:11 AM Monday, July 10, 2017
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/07/una-cum.html

The debate:

Hans Georg Lundahl

July 10, 2017 at 7:32 AM

I was under somewhat false pretenses lured into attending an SSPX Mass last Wednesday.

I knelt, because of the canon prayer and transsubstantiation and presence of Christ.

I also did NOT answer the prayers, like the Amen after Pater or Blessing.

Anonymous

July 10, 2017 at 12:58 PM

If a valid priest/Bishop & the SSPX is all that is available,please attend that chapel regularly!

Its better than not going I promise you.

We are blessed to have a sede chapel that celebrates the pre-1950 rubrics,holy week,etc...

If the SSPX with a valid priest was all I had available,I would attend every week!

Hans Georg Lundahl

July 11, 2017 at 3:05 AM

Pope Michael is against it.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

July 11, 2017 at 3:08 AM

LOL! You have a good sense of humor George!

---Introibo

Hans Georg Lundahl

July 13, 2017 at 6:39 AM

Like Buster Keaton, often not intended on my part.

Like this time.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

July 13, 2017 at 10:43 PM

Well of course "Pope" Michael is against Una Cum, because he delusionally thinks HE is the pope and should be mentioned! Any one who thinks his mommy, daddy, two nice neighbors and Theresa Benns (the ersatz "theologian" who set up the farmhouse "conclave") can make him "pope" has serious issues, no matter how nice and well intentioned.

---Introibo

Tom A.

July 23, 2017 at 6:16 AM

Anyone who thinks a bunch of heretics dressed up as Catholic cardinals can make someone a pope also has serious issues. While I am not a proponent of Michael being Pope, at least he was alledgedly elected by Catholics. We know that Bergolio was elected by modernists. So who's claim to the papacy is more valid?

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

July 23, 2017 at 6:56 AM

Tom, I'd have to respectfully say neither has a claim on the papacy. The reasons for Bergoglio you mentioned. For David Bawden ("Pope" Michael) it takes more than six lay Catholics (three WOMEN among them) to make a "conclave" Yet I take your point--Bergoglio is completely unCatholic. An apostate elected by a group of heretics, each of whom was appointed by a heretic. Bawden may be whacky but he is closer to authentic Catholicism than Bergoglio. God bless, ---Introibo

Tom A.

July 23, 2017 at 6:56 PM

Yes Bawden may be misguided, but at least he professs the Catholic faith. He also saw that the logical next step to sedevacantism is to elect a new Pope. Seeing how modernist imposters in Rome are incapable of electing a true Pope, the job falls on the remaining traditional bishops and clergy. I can sympathize with Bawden. Everyone complains about Rome yet no one gives the faithful a true Pope. Making a Pope is not a sacramental act. Its a legal action. In times of emergency, the law should not be used to tie mans hands for survival. The ultimate law is the salvation of souls so I would think the traditional bishops could take extraordinary steps to restablish order in the remnant of faithful left. What are they waiting for?

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

July 23, 2017 at 7:10 PM

I share your frustration Tom. When the Shepard is struck, the sheep are scattered. You have correctly put your finger on the problem, and the problem goes deep. The "Una Cum" issue is just one example of division that keeps an imperfect general council from happening. SSPV won't attend with Thuc Bishops. Certain Thuc Bishops won't attend with Lefebvre bishops--who still don't accept sedevacantism. Still other bishops DON'T want a council because they are sedeprivationists, and are waiting for Bergoglio or his successor to have their "Saul into St. Paul" experience and become formally (not just materially) the pope. It is a mess.

---Introibo

Hans Georg Lundahl

August 10, 2017 at 7:27 AM

OK, and thinking one can licitly consecrate bishops with no normal apostolic mandate is somehow better than convening a conclave, inviting cardinals, and considering them as heretics and no longer valid electors if they still accept Wojtyla after 1986?

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

August 10, 2017 at 8:00 AM

Hans,
Until we get a morally unanimous consensus that (a) we are in a state of sedevacantism and (b) we proceed according to the laws of the Church as properly set forth for such an extraordinary situation, it's the best we can do for now.

---Introibo

Hans Georg Lundahl

August 29, 2017 at 7:24 AM

Did Monsignor Lefèbvre wait for a morally unanimous consensus in 1988?

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

August 29, 2017 at 7:45 AM

Comparing apples and oranges. The requirements for a conclave is not the same as for a valid Sacrament.

---Introibo

Hans Georg Lundahl

August 31, 2017 at 2:27 AM

There is more than validity, there is also licitity of episcopal consecration.

If an episcopal consecration without normal apostolic mandate is normally IL-licit (if valid), the act of Monsignor Lefèbvre means that he considered there was a case of necessity, in which normal rules don't quite apply.

IF normal rules apply, Williamson, Galarreta, Tissier de Mallerais, Fellay were all validly consecrated, like Rifan, but the only one whom it is or was for long licit to approach about his episcopal powers was Rifan, since he quickly made up with Rome. It would in that case still be illicit to approach Bishop Williamson.

If on the other hand the matters are so bad that normal rules do NOT apply to the situation, or were so, why stop at episcopal consecration, and not add a conclave of emergency which removes the state of emergency?

Pope Michael - or if you prefer, Bishop Bawden (yes, he was consecrated in 2011, Gaudete Sunday, having been priest since c. 24 hours earlier) made a study of what epikeia as a virtue means, it is a virtue dealing with emergency situations in which normal rules don't apply, and the response he got is that for normal rules NOT to apply, one has to act in ways so as to remove emergency and restore full applicability of normal rules. Which means not stopping at episcopal consecrations out of normal licitness, but making a creative move about papal elections (usually referred to as "conclaves" due to the usual and normal mode in which e g Pope St Pius X was elected).

This is his argument against those who have been (in their view) prolonging the case of necessity which justified their positions.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

August 31, 2017 at 6:24 PM

Normal rules means rules that are not of divine positive law that cannot be changed. For example, the mandate for episcopal consecration is of purely ecclesiastical origin and admits of circumstances that would render it null and void. On the other hand, the requirement that only a validly ordained priest can offer Mass is of Divine positive law, such that a layman cannot offer Mass validly no matter what the circumstances.

The election of a pope has changed over the years, but certain things have not. Women are barred from participating in a conclave or an imperfect general council. Bawden was "elected" by his mommy, his daddy, and two nice neighbors along with Mrs. Benns and himself. This is what is commonly known as a farce.

He is not even a bishop or priest. He derives his orders from one "Bp" Bob Biarnesen. Bp Bob received his orders through the Old Catholic line in the US which are held as doubtful. What ever happened to ol' Bp. Bob? We know nothing of his ecclesiastical training and education (if any). That compounds the doubt. Why did he leave Bawden? Why isn't he mentioned on his website and made a "cardinal" with an office outside the chicken coop?

David Bawden is a well-intentioned, yet delusional man.

---Introibo

Hans Georg Lundahl

September 1, 2017 at 2:31 AM

If women cannot even participate in a conclave, that makes the two votes of his mother and Theresa Benns invalid.

This leaves 3 votes against one (his own).

"He derives his orders from one "Bp" Bob Biarnesen. Bp Bob received his orders through the Old Catholic line in the US which are held as doubtful."

I had read sth on the wikipedia of some consecrating bishop actually deriving HIS line via two intermediates from Duarte Costa, which is not doubtful.

Sure Bob Biarnesen was chief consecrator and not just coconsecrator?

As to "delusional", this word smacks too much of modern psychiatry, in which ideologically charged questions can be used to denote insanity.

If you wanted to say "he is wrong", those words would have sufficed.

As to why the consecrating bishops are not mentioned, I have wondered that too, and just mentioned that for now I am supposing His Holiness has a good reason not to mention them (good as in valid, not as in excellent for egoistic purposes).

As for Theresa Benns, she also left him.

She - and one Indian man who debated with me while as Palmarian I was opposed to his election on the simple ground I considered the See filled in 1990 by "Gregorio XVII" - are on a site denouncing him as a fraud, and one of their grounds seems to be his ... character.

According to them, he is a bully.

Perhaps, but that changes nothing about the validity of his papacy.

For me, I have not been quite able to verify where certain blocks to my carreer as a writer and composer are coming from, even if His Holiness has not completely overturned them by publishing things by me either. Whoever IS responsible is very much a bully, but he could have been under pressure.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

September 5, 2017 at 6:54 PM

Hans,
The very idea that there were only six Catholics left in the world is an absurd contention. Bawden voted for himself, and he has no clue on how to read the dense Latin pages on an imperfect general council. There can be no conclave of non-Cardinals. "Bp" Bob performed the ceremony alone and disappeared. Sound fishy? In the extreme.

---Introibo

Hans Georg Lundahl

September 6, 2017 at 1:47 AM

"The very idea that there were only six Catholics left in the world is an absurd contention."

I don't think that was the contention.

The only six who acted justly in the matter does not equal the only six who were Catholics, like such who hadn't heard of the invitations to the conclave.

"Bawden voted for himself,"

Says who?

I assumed he didn't, because in a conclave no one does, so if he did, I'd like to know a source for it.

"and he has no clue on how to read the dense Latin pages on an imperfect general council."

I have seen one fault in Latin by him in the past, but that does not mean he has no clue on how to read Latin - a page being dense has little to do with it.

"There can be no conclave of non-Cardinals."

If by "conclave" we mean ordinary and in usual legal form conducted papal election, agreed. If we mean papal election in general, I think he beats you in Church history.

""Bp" Bob performed the ceremony alone and disappeared. Sound fishy? In the extreme."

At least somewhat, yes. It could be a case of fraud, but it could also be a case of someone putting pressure on Bob after the fact or someone putting him up to putting His Holiness in an awkward position before it.

Also, I think I recall the ceremony was by two bishops.

One thought crossing my mind is that they had agreed beforehand to ordain him and consecrate him and then leave him, so he could not document it, properly.

I do not have proof culpability is on him.

It could also be they were blackmailed after the fact.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

September 7, 2017 at 2:41 PM

That there were other methods of electing a pope but once gone, that method can no longer be used. Only an imperfect general council (or sedeprivationism) hold the key. No approved theologian teaches otherwise.

The source that Bawden voted for himself was Bawden's own site that claimed the vote was "unanimous." He may have changed it, but that's what I had read.

He has no formal Ecclesiastical training or education. He has a high school education and was expelled from SSPX.

---Introibo

Hans Georg Lundahl

September 8, 2017 at 1:41 AM

"That there were other methods of electing a pope but once gone, that method can no longer be used."

Not even in a state of emergency?

"Only an imperfect general council (or sedeprivationism) hold the key. No approved theologian teaches otherwise."

I tried sedeprivationism. Was John Paul II a material Pope? Could Benedict XVI have been a formal Pope? I hoped so. I have felt deceived since hoping so.

Imperfect general council ... I think that one was tried at Elx (Elche). I have rejected the result since I - like Pope Michael - am not a Feeneyite.

"The source that Bawden voted for himself was Bawden's own site that claimed the vote was "unanimous." He may have changed it, but that's what I had read."

OK, I took that as meaning five votes against one.

"He has no formal Ecclesiastical training or education."

I have noticed on certain issues.

But does that invalidate his conclusion? No.

If his conclusion on emergency conclave was valid, does it invalidate his election? No.

Formal training and formal education are overvalued items. No sacrament or faculty or jurisdiction depends on someone having it. If I were a bishop and ordained a man who had not got the philosophy course under others, and even one who had legitimately flunked philosophy and whom it would be sinful for me to ordain, he would still be validly ordained.

If I had given him faculties to hear confession, his faculties would not become invalid because I found out he had flunked or never even made the exams in moral theology or canon law.

And if I had died and the pope given him jurisdiction as administrator of my diocese up to election of bishop by a chapter vote, the jurisdiction he would be exercising would also not be invalid because he lacked formal training.

"He has a high school education ..."

Plus home schooling and continued studies at home.

"...and was expelled from SSPX."

You agree with him he has been a student at SSPX. He has given another version on how it ended.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

September 9, 2017 at 9:38 AM

No, not even in a state of emergency can a conclave be called. It requires cardinals appointed by a pope. Right there it ends the "papacy" of Bawden. Some things can never be done even in a state of emergency. For example, if someone was in danger of death you could not validly baptize them using milk or beer as a substitute for water.

An imperfect general council has to meet the right standards, just as a conclave can't be called without real cardinals. You can't be elected "pope" by your mommy, your daddy and two nice neighbors on your Kansas farmhouse.

Read the theologians pre-V2 and you won't fall for phonies like Bawden or Dominguez ("Pope" Gregory) who taught heresy, molested the "nuns" and became a "Saint." His "stigmata" in a picture I saw looked like ketchup--and probably was!

---Introibo

Hans Georg Lundahl

September 11, 2017 at 1:17 AM

I am an ex-adherent of "Gregorio XVII".

Theologians (not Church fathers or scholastics, but contemporary) pre-V2 and especially pre-Pius XII even (like Dorsch) are no doubt good, but a bit hard to come by.

I ditched Dominguez over a doctrinal matter before hearing/reading he had molested monks as well.

"Antichrist sees the world from the fourth dimension, the Most Pure Virgin from the eighth dimension"

Hey, what about God creating space in THREE dimensions, to indicate He is THREE Persons?

So, I am an ex-Palmarian.

Ditching Dominguez came as per reading St Augustine, less hard to come by, most works, than Father Dorsch. Or as per having read Augustine.

Either way, validity of a sacrament is different from validity of jurisdiction.

And an antipope can become a true pope if one is needed and no one else is available.

One of my theories (abandoned) was that Pope Krav in Zagreb had been carrying the torch to 2012. But that was a comedy act, and the comedian gave it up when he saw sedevacantist popes exist for real. Now, if this had been right, the 1990 conclave would have been invalid for another reason, namely the see not being vacant.

That means, Pope Michael would have started out as an antipope, but could have become a true Pope after cessation of "Pope Krav" (had he been for real).

How come an antipope can become a true pope? See Pope St Felix II. He bagan to be Pope (after starting as an antipope) when clergy of Rome considered Liberius apostate, abdicated when Liberius cleared himself and reigned as true Pope a second time after Pope Liberius died.

On the other hand, this happened with "clergy of Rome" = equivalent of cardinals.

And "on the third hand" / "first hand again", time is a bit running out for sedevacantism proper. Perpetuos successores.

I got a view on an apologetics video by JPHolding, he defended replacing of Old Covenant by new by saying "olam" (I think it was, I'm no Hebraist) means perpetual rather than "eternal".

But the, if so, perpetual covenant of Sinai was interrupted for 70 years. 1958+70=2028.

That might be the limit for a break not changing perpetuity of papacy, as defined in Vatican council of 1869-70.

An imperfect general council could of course also confer papal jurisdiction on someone previously an antipope, I suppose?

Or recognise someone who was suspected of being so was a Pope, after all?

A decision of such an imperfect general council could trump the otherwise correct opinion of Father Dorsch, I suppose?