The AoftheA Catholicity Baseline Test

The AoftheA Catholicity Baseline Test March 18, 2015

Over at Jennifer Fitz’s place, Sticking The Corners, is a great post titled “The Hero Complex that is Destroying the Catholic Faith. In it, Jennifer wrote:

Parents, not catechists, are the people ordained by God to pass on the faith to their children.  The mission of the Church is to make disciples of those parents, and equip them to teach their children.  If we have to choose between programs for adults and programs for children, adults are the priority.  Not because we don’t care about kids, but because we want what is best for kids.

What is best for kids is what is best for adults and what is best for the Catholic faith: Adult disciples passing on the faith within their families.

Yeppers. Too many adults have no relationship with Jesus Christ, or have an abysmal grasp of Church teaching, or worse, don’t care all that much.  Back in 2010, a Pew Research poll found, for instance, that only 45% of Catholics were “unable to recognize Church teaching on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.” That’s just awful.

The problems persist. Jen’s article and experiences as a catechist attests to it. But what to do about it?

The AoftheA Religious Education Resource Department has the answer: the Catholicity Baseline Test. It’s sad to say it, but I think we gotta assume that the average American Catholic adult knows absolutely nothing – or a skewed, “through a glass darkly” version – of the faith. I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt, that most adults are clueless about Church teaching, rather than actively averse to it (unless they’re Catholic teachers in the San Francisco Archdiocese – then it’s a fait accompli. What?). In fact, they mightn’t be merely clueless – they may even know less than nothing. The Catholicity Baseline Test is a finely tuned and formulated list of twenty questions that will assist the catechist in determining how far beneath the Nothing Bar these adults find themselves.

Here we go –

1) What letter does the word ‘Catholic’ begin with?

2) What hardware did the Romans use to nail Jesus to the cross?

3) If God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses, and Moses passed on those commandments to the Jews, then how many commandments did God give the Jews?

4) Sex with a person other than your spouse is okay is you really really like them. True or false?

5) What was the color of the Golden Calf?

6) The Bible is comprised of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Which one came first?

7) Jesus preached against climate change. True or false.

8) What day of the week does Good Friday land on?

9) When Jesus calmed the storm while in the boat with the disciples, what was the weather like at the time?

10) In what country is Rome, Italy located?

11) Who wrote St Paul’s Letter to the Galatians?

12) Moses and the Israelites wandered in the desert for four decades before entering the Promised Land. How many years were they lost?

13) God is a Democrat. True or false.

14) In Jesus’ parable of the lost sheep, a shepherd has 100 sheep, and one goes missing. How many sheep did not go missing?

15) The current Pope is Francis I. How many other popes named Francis have there been?

16) Catholics cast their vote for pope every six years. True or false?

17) What shape is the cross?

18) Jesus is the Son of God, and His mother is Mary. Who’s His father?

19) Jesus died, was buried, and was reincarnated on the third day. True or false?

20) (This question must be read aloud once to the adult) You’re administering the Eucharist at Mass for 4 consecutive weeks. At the first Mass, 37 people receive in the hand and 12 receive orally. The next week, 41 receive in the hand and 19 receive orally. The following week, 46 receive in the hand and 9 receive orally. On the final Sunday, 42 receive in the hand and 14 receive orally. How old is the Eucharistic Minister?

The number of incorrect answers provides you with the Catholicity Baseline Number (CBN). If the respondent answers all 20 questions correctly – congratulations! They have a CBN of Zero, which means they’re less clueless than the average American Catholic!

Of course, as a catechist, it also means you still have your work cut out for you, but at least you know where to start.

[Answers: 1) C. 2) Nails. 3) 10. 4) False. 5) Gold. 6) Old Testament. 7) False. 8) Friday. 9) Stormy. 10) Italy. 11) St Paul. 12) 40. 13 ) False. 14) 99. 15) None. 16) False. 17) Cross-shaped. 18) God. 19) False. 20) Really???]


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Some of your answers are wrong:

    1) Do you mean in Latin, Hebrew, or Greek? Specificity is a virtue.

    2) Also, a hammer. Duh.

    3) Are you saying that the other 603 Commandments didn’t come from God?

    9) At the time that Jesus calmed the storm, it was calm. Are you saying that Jesus failed to calm the storm?

    17) It’s the shape of a lowercase “t.” But not the way it’s printed on the screen; the way a kid writes it, without the curl at the bottom.

    Man, if you keep getting your answers wrong, I’m going to start doubting whether you’re really Catholic yourself.

  • 20) Over the age of 45.

    I know this because I’m 44 and I’m of the first class in my small hometown to receive communion in the hand.

  • I am laughing so hard right now!!

    The best part of this is that these questions are not too dissimilar from the ones I ask my 2nd graders, trying to get them to use their brains. They usually respond with a blank stare, after which I repeat the question and emphasize the dead giveaway part of the question. I usually have to ask a third time.

    But I keep trying with them because logic is important.

  • tj.nelson
    • LarryD

      “Swedish meatballs?” I miss that show.

      Oh, and I am not Lawrence Orbach…

      • tj.nelson

        Haha! I meant to include a comment but spent too much time trying to post the video. Anyway – EWTN should use your stuff for a Half Wit sketch on their new comedy hour hosted by you. I mean, they should have a comedy hour, with you as host.

  • Hans-Georg Lundahl

    15 still no Pope named Francis, Bergoglio not being Pope

    • Anthony Zarrella

      Oh, leave the sedevacantist nonsense out of it. We can debate whether Francis is a good Pope or a bad Pope (and there have been plenty of the latter, throughout the history of the Church), but on what authority can you possibly say he isn’t Pope?

      • Hans-Georg Lundahl

        He canonised a Qoran kisser.

        Canonisations, if carried out by real Popes are infallible.

        Qoran kissers may not be in Hell all of them (I suspect the miracles were so as to show a hint of purgatory, all of them, since some really though Wojtyla was in Hell), but they are not canonisable.

        • Anthony Zarrella

          That’s… utterly ridiculous.

          First of all, by what authority do you announce this new rule that kissing another religion’s book (as a sign of respect, not of worship or reverence) automatically and permanently disqualifies one for Sainthood? Even if, arguably, it is sinful (which I doubt), how is it so unthinkably horrid as to warrant a bar from Sainthood and speculation that the perpetrator might be damned?

          Secondly, and more to the point, your “logic” is making the tail wag the dog. Normally, we would say that because the pope is infallible (under certain circumstances and on certain topics), therefore whatever he says infallibly must be true, even if it seems not to be. You are turning that on its head and saying that because a given statement is (to you) self-evidently false, it is proof that Francis is not a real pope!

          Given that so-called “logic,” what does papal infallibility even mean to you? That the pope is infallible when he makes a putatively infallible statement with which you agree?

          What would stop someone on the other (liberal) side of the aisle from saying, “Pope Paul VI claimed to infallibly state that contraception is wrong, and we know that can’t be true, so the logical conclusion is that Paul VI wasn’t a real pope”?

          What would stop someone from even going back further and saying (on the same “logic”), “We know that properly-constituted Councils are infallible, and the Council of Nicea purported to infallibly deny Arianism, but Arius was clearly right, so the Council of Nicea is proven invalid”?

          If you claim the ability to judge the legitimacy of the pope based on whether you agree with him, then a) papal infallibility is a dead letter, and b) you are in a very real sense no different from a Protestant – Luther thought he could judge the validity of Church authority by whether it agreed with his own moral intuitions, too.

          [Oh, and also, from the Epistle of Pope St. Leo IX to the Patriarch of Constantinople:

          By passing a preceding judgment on the great See, concerning which it is not permitted any man to pass judgment, you have received anathema from all the Fathers of all the venerable Councils…As the hinge while remaining immovable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because “the highest See is judged by no one.”

          Seems this could apply equally right here and now, does it not?]

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “First of all, by what authority do you announce this new rule that
            kissing another religion’s book (as a sign of respect, not of worship or
            reverence) automatically and permanently disqualifies one for
            Sainthood?”

            No new rule.

            I Commandment.

            And not “permanently” just up to making amends for it – which Wojtyla however never did.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            The First Commandment would only be applicable if Pope JPII had kissed the Koran as a sign of worship or as a sign that he assented to its teachings. You have no evidence that this is the case (and, based on John Paul’s strong statements in favor of the Catholic faith, there is substantial evidence against this interpretation).

            Are you familiar with the phrase, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”? The claim that a Pope was an idolater is a pretty extraordinary claim… but your “evidence” is a single photo-op in which he kissed a book?

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “The First Commandment would only be applicable if Pope JPII had kissed the Koran as a sign of worship or as a sign that he assented to its teachings.”

            If I spat on a Bible, would that only be sacrilege if I did so AS a sign of disrespect?

            Or is spitting per se a sign of disrespect in relation to a book (and many other things, except ground, when spat on)?

            If so, kissing a book is also per se a sign of religious respect for it. ERGO, first commandment is applicable.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “Normally, we would say that because the pope is infallible (under
            certain circumstances and on certain topics), therefore whatever he says
            infallibly must be true, even if it seems not to be. You are turning
            that on its head and saying that because a given statement is (to you)
            self-evidently false, it is proof that Francis is not a real pope!”

            This is not making a tail wag the dog.

            The Dogma (excuse pun) of infallibility does not make clear which criterium “takes precedence” and which is “making the tail wag the dog”.

            It is as logically applied (as far as that goes) either way.

            It is less logically applied by you in this doctrinal ramification of canonising a Coran Kisser.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “What would stop someone on the other (liberal) side of the aisle from
            saying, “Pope Paul VI claimed to infallibly state that contraception is
            wrong, and we know that can’t be true, so the logical conclusion is that
            Paul VI wasn’t a real pope”?”

            Why should these heretics be stopped by good example?

            Plus, was he a real Pope, if he accepted NFP?

          • Anthony Zarrella

            First: my point wasn’t that it sets a bad example, but rather that the same “logic” applies. If it is “logical” for you to conclude that Pope Francis isn’t really pope because he made an infallible decree that you refuse to accept, then it is equally logical to conclude that Paul VI wasn’t pope because he got it “wrong” on contraception, or for the “Old Catholics” to assert that Vatican I wasn’t a real Council because it was wrong on papal infallibility.

            As to your second point, you really are something else… What is your problem with NFP? And besides, since you seem comfortable judging papal infallibility by the standard of “does it accord with the Magisterium of Hans-Georg?”, then what exactly would it take for you to say, “I find this statement hard to accept, but I accept it as divinely revealed because the Church says so.”?

            It seems to me that you don’t believe in the authority of the Church at all. When you converted (you say you’re ex-Lutheran), did you declare, as my wife did when she was received into the Church, “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.”?

            It sounds more like your faith is that the “true” holy Catholic Church is defined by whether it believes and professes all that you believe, teach, and proclaim to be revealed by God.

            The Church teaches X, but Hans-Georg believes Y – should Hans-Georg humbly submit? No! This clearly means that the Church is being led by a false [Pope/Council/whatever], because if it were rightly guided, it would teach Y!

            Don’t you see the absurdity of that?

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “If it is “logical” for you to conclude that Pope Francis isn’t really
            pope because he made an infallible decree that you refuse to accept,
            then it is equally logical to conclude that Paul VI wasn’t pope because
            he got it “wrong” on contraception”

            He did get it wrong in contraception, by saying natural acts ordered for contraceptive ends do not acquire the sinful characteristic of contraception.

            “did you declare, as my wife did when she was received into the Church,
            “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes,
            teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.”?”

            I did.

            I did however not declare explicitly in that declaration that John Paul II was Pope of it. Though the fact I was received by priests in Communion with him implies such a declaration too – but that was not explicitly asked for.

            However, the holy Catholic Church is a per se. Who one believes is Pope (in times when that is disputed, as, obviously, now) is a per accidens on where magisterium is. It is a prudential issue and therefore not a thing involved in a direct vow.

            Otherwise any extreme Papal claimant could invalidate that conversion and ask me to confess I had never been a Catholic before converting to him. I am speaking of extreme ones, Pope Michael has not asked me such a declaration.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            Ahh… a “Pope Michael” adherent. Why didn’t you say so from the beginning? I could have skipped right over all the “try to argue with you from an orthodox Catholic perspective” and straight to “pray that God will deliver you from unreason.”

            I’ll make one last stab at it though… by what authority was “Pope Michael” elevated to the papacy (surely not by a Conclave, as has been the canonical method since long before Vatican II)? Under the authority of which Pope was he validly ordained to the clergy (or was he at all, before his elevation)? Even if he was supposedly ordained under his own papal authority, subsequent to his elevation, from which validly ordained bishop did he receive his ordination? To be clear, if your belief is that there was some other non-Vatican pope as his immediate predecessor (I’m not really “up on” Michaelist beliefs), the same questions apply to whomever you believe was the first of “your” line of popes after whenever you believe the Vatican succession lost legitimacy.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “by what authority was “Pope Michael” elevated to the papacy (surely not by a Conclave, as has been the canonical method since long before Vatican II)?”

            By an emergency conclave, to which was invited all the remnant of faithful, and to which came six persons.

            Emergency conclave means he considered the criterium of cardinals dispensable, (yes, he had issued and formulated invitation) as those validly appointed under Pius XII were either dead or accomplices to Vatican II Apostasy.

            The emergency conclave was in 1990, 4 years after a major act of apostasy by Wojtyla (Assisi 86).

            “Under the authority of which Pope was he validly ordained to the clergy (or was he at all, before his elevation)”

            You are confusing licit and valid ordinations.

            He was ordained and cosecrated bishop under the jurisdictional authority of ultimately himself.

            He was validly so by one thitherto vagante bishop, in 2011. One who was neither of Thuc nor of Lefèbvre lineage, since both were and are contested. He has decided against the licitness, but not yet against validity of these two lineages. While wiki still did episcopal lineages, I checked his, it goes back to some Brazilians who discarded Pius XII in 1950 or 1950’s. But there has been no doubt about validity of episcopal material succession.

            If I recall correctly, the bishop in question is the somewhat troublesome (to me) Robb Thurston. He was previous to accepting Pope Michael Byzantine Uniate Sede. Pope Michael has about that time issued a decree from now allowing married men to be ordained, as in Byzantine rite also in Latin Rite.

            I suspect the wiki feature episcopal lineage was discontinued because it failed to ridicule but instead exonerated Pope Michael. You know, wiki admins are not always fervent Trad Catholics.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            So… let me get this straight:

            He (Mikey) decided, on his own authority (before his supposed elevation to the papacy) to convoke an “emergency conclave”.

            In doing so, he (who was not yet, even by your own reckoning, Supreme Pontiff) claimed to abrogate the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law (I know you reject the 1983 Code, but surely you accept the 1917) and associated canon laws regarding election of popes, despite that they (the prior laws) had been promulgated by the supreme legislator of the Church (a former pope, in all instances), and he, as yet, had no superior or equal authority.

            Also entirely by his own (admittedly non-papal) authority, he dispensed with the need for Cardinal Electors, and decided instead that the mere acclamation of six people (you don’t say, but I suspect they weren’t even all bishops, much less Cardinals) would make him pope. [Edit: I just looked it up and discovered that three of the six people were David Bawden (i.e. “Michael”), his mom, and his dad, and that all of them were laity.]

            This was, of course because only those six had acceded to his convocation invitations, and therefore were the only six faithful Catholics. We can be sure of this, because Michael (before being pope) decreed it so. It is, of course, plainly silly to assert that no one except those six came to his conclave because they didn’t recognize his authority to call one. No, it can only possibly be because the rest were not faithful.

            How am I doing so far? Am I restating your beliefs correctly? If not, please do point out what I’m misstating.

            Assuming this all is correct, let me ask one further question: Assume, for a moment, that I become (in all sincerity) a Michaelist – i.e. by your standard, a “faithful Catholic”. If I, Anthony Zarrella, then sent out invitations stating that “Pope Michael” had apostasized, and I was convoking an emergency conclave to elect a new pope, and if only six or seven people showed, could they make me pope? If so, why isn’t that absurd? If not, what made Michael so special?

            [Further edit: Why is Bawden (a.k.a. Michael) the Pope, and not Victor von Pentz (“Pope Linus II”) or Alejandro Greico (“Pope Alexander IX”)? Both of the others claim to have been validly elected by their own conclaves as well, and Greico even claims to be the latest in a line of three.]

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            1) “He (Mikey) decided, on his own authority (before his supposed elevation to the papacy) to convoke an “emergency conclave”.”

            In an emergency authority question is wavered.

            That
            is a principle also upheld by basically popeless pastoral of both sedes
            and lefebvrians. David Bawden considered this had to end by applying
            same principle to restore papacy.

            2) “In doing so, he (who was not yet, even by your own reckoning, Supreme
            Pontiff) claimed to abrogate the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law (I
            know you reject the 1983 Code, but surely you accept the 1917) and
            associated canon laws regarding election of popes, despite that they
            (the prior laws) had been promulgated by the supreme legislator of the
            Church (a former pope, in all instances), and he, as yet, had no
            superior or equal authority.”

            He claimed to be dealing with an emergency situation not foreseen by these legislators.

            3) ” I just looked it up and discovered that three of the six people were
            David Bawden (i.e. “Michael”), his mom, and his dad, and that all of them were laity.”

            Yes. One reaction might have been to post-pone conclave till when a bishop or a priest should turn up.

            He for his part had decided that pure lay conclaves were after all possible.

            He had found one precedent which I rejected while I rejected him.

            4) “This was, of course because only those six had acceded to his convocation invitations, and therefore were the only six faithful Catholics.”

            Faithful
            and just. He was not considering everyother sede as a heretic, but as
            being unjust in extending to their priests emergency powers without
            using emergency powers to make a conclave.

            Why should HIS convocation have been heeded? Because their was back then no other one.

            5) “It is, of course, plainly silly to assert that no one except those six came to his conclave because they didn’t recognize his authority to call one.”

            That was no doubt their excuse.

            And his reply to the concerned – remember, not Opus Dei priests comfortable with Novus Ordo, but people who were sure that they had to disobey Conciliar Rome, mainly sedes, of which there were a bunch back then too – would be “if so, where is your authority to administer the sacraments?”

            6) “If I, Anthony Zarrella, then sent out invitations stating that “Pope
            Michael” had apostasized, and I was convoking an emergency conclave to
            elect a new pope, and if only six or seven people showed, could they
            make me pope? If so, why isn’t that absurd? If not, what made Michael so special?”

            If you could make a case he was an apostate (without this depending on his being a “rebel” against “Conciliar authority”), you could possibly do that.

            One question would be if you accept lay conclaves, unless you get a bishop onto it.

            And one of my solutions is Krav was licitly Pope (with some priest at least in conclave) Michael started out as anti-Pope but became Pope at cessation of Pope Krav’s claim in 2012. But I know too little about Krav to substantiate this as a fact.

            Besides, your question will be relevant for next few questions.

            7) “Why is Bawden (a.k.a. Michael) the Pope, and not Victor von Pentz
            (“Pope Linus II”) or Alejandro Greico (“Pope Alexander IX”)? Both of
            the others claim to have been validly elected by their own conclaves as
            well, and Greico even claims to be the latest in a line of three.”

            Because all of above did precisely what you just outlined, except having been “Michaelites” (or “Bawdenites”) first.

            Each of these is a later conclave than that of 1990.

            Victor von Pentz (1994) probably took as excuse the pure lay participation in conclave.

            The line of three leading up to Greico started even later (2004), and sede bishops even participated.

            So, to them his election by laymen is one obstacle, and they are also Feeneyites, they consider him a heretic for accepting that under some circumstances a man not visibly Catholic might be in the state of grace and might even die in the state of grace without visible conversion to the Catholic Church.

            I considered Alexander IX up to finding out he was, unlike Pope Michael, a very clear Feeneyite (has canonised Leonard Feeney too and doglatised his position).

          • Anthony Zarrella

            In an emergency authority question is wavered. … David Bawden considered this had to end by applying same principle to restore papacy. … He claimed to be dealing with an emergency situation not foreseen by these legislators.

            There is a huge logical gap between “In an emergency situation, normal rules of authority do not apply” and “therefore, I, personally, have the authority to not only do this, but to bind others by it.”

            If the U.S. government collapsed, surely I (and any other American of good will) would have the emergency right and duty to establish order in my own area. That’s a far cry from saying that I have the right, by virtue of emergency, to call for an election and make myself President, then claim that anyone else in the (I guess former) U.S. must either follow me or be a traitor to the country.

            This is, of course, all contingent on the validity of the sedevacantist position in the first place – which I fully reject, but for the sake of this discussion I’m willing to pretend it’s true (since we’ve already seen that we’ll run in circles if we try to debate that issue).

            So, let’s say the papacy was vacant by reason of apostasy. Let’s say that there was a principle in effect allowing for an emergency conclave to be called.

            What was it that allowed Bawden, autocratically, to decide that one would be called, as well as where and when (one assumes in his own hometown…)?

            When an ordinary conclave is called, the Cardinal Electors are summoned to Rome based on the residual authority of the deceased or retired Pontiff, embodied in the Canon. You say “the question of authority is waived” in an emergency, but that’s not coherent – perhaps the normal authority doesn’t exist, but there still must be some principle that decides who has the authority to issue a summons of this sort. What principle invested David Bawden with that authority? Was it simply “up for grabs” to the first person who decided to send out invitations?

            That is a principle also upheld by basically popeless pastoral of both sedes and lefebvrians.

            As I understand it, “sedes” (that is to say, those who recognize no Pope) consider the question of liceity (that is, specifically the question of authority to administer sacraments) to be waived by necessity.

            To the best of my knowledge, though, none of them claim the right to seize authority, and impose their will on other Catholics.

            There’s a huge gap between this “agreed upon” principle that, in the absence of papal authority, clergy may continue their ministries under presumed authority, and, on the other hand, the principle that, in the absence of papal authority, some random layman may issue a binding summons to all faithful Catholics (including bishops, who are above him in hierarchy whether or not you believe there’s a valid pope) and then decree that all of them are bound by the decision of whoever decides to show up.

            He for his part had decided that pure lay conclaves were after all possible.

            He had found one precedent which I rejected while I rejected him.

            First – what precedent? I’m even willing to accept (purely on principle) that one might exist, but not on the sole word and authority of David Bawden.

            Second – again, we have David Bawden, not yet pope by anyone’s standard, setting himself up as an authoritative interpreter of canon law. The precedent permits it because he decided that it did.

            Third, and perhaps most important – if laity are, by his interpretation, valid electors, then would he not then have been obliged to re-send invitations, and include “sede” laity as well?

            I can almost see the warped logic that allows you and him to conclude that those who showed up were the only votes that counted because those who refused were unfaithful… but how can you justify letting six people (none of them with any inherent authority) impose their decision on the other “sede” laity who weren’t asked to come and vote?

            He was not considering every other sede as a heretic, but as being unjust in extending to their priests emergency powers without using emergency powers to make a conclave.

            So, again, by his own non-papal authority, he concluded that his own method of dealing with the situation was the only justified one, and that therefore anyone who disagreed could be discounted and ignored.

            Why should HIS convocation have been heeded? Because their was back then no other one.

            So… it really was just up-for-grabs to whoever happened to call one first?

            And his reply to the concerned … would be “if so, where is your authority to administer the sacraments?”

            Again, what prevents them from saying, to that question, “We believe that we have ‘residual’ authority, as it were, to administer the Sacraments. We simply deny your authority to issue a summons to us and to consider us bound in faith to respond.”

            This whole Bawdenist edifice depends entirely on the assertion that he, a layman with absolutely no canonical authority, had the power to make judgments and decisions that would be binding on all “true” Catholics.

            Can you point me to any other time, in all of Church history, where a layperson (without the decree or support of a reigning pope) had the authority to issue commands to bishops and priests in matters of the faith?

            One question would be if you accept lay conclaves, unless you get a bishop onto it.

            Not a question for me but for you. If the lay conclave that supposedly elevated Bawden was valid, then presumably my own lay conclave would also be valid.

            And one of my solutions is Krav was licitly Pope (with some priest at least in conclave) Michael started out as anti-Pope but became Pope at cessation of Pope Krav’s claim in 2012. But I know too little about Krav to substantiate this as a fact.

            Two major problems with this thesis:

            1) An anti-pope doesn’t magically become a real pope when his rival dies or retires. A conclave is either valid (in which case its choice becomes pope, immediately), or it is not (in which case the elimination of the principal opposition does not reach back in time and retroactively make it valid).

            2) Krav was a stand-up comedian and “Krav” means cow. Taking “Pope Cow I” as a serious papal claimant is about as absurd as taking “Pastafarianism” as a serious religion.

            I considered Alexander IX up to finding out he was, unlike Pope Michael, a very clear Feeneyite (has canonised Leonard Feeney too and doglatised his position).

            Well, on that at least, we agree – we both reject Feenyism.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “That’s a far cry from saying that I have the right, by virtue of
            emergency, to call for an election and make myself President, then claim
            that anyone else in the (I guess former) U.S. must either follow me or
            be a traitor to the country.”

            Indeed.

            You WOULD have the right, by virtue of emergency, to call for an election, but you would also have to take into account how much the election was attended by people you consider to be reasonably patriotic.

            Also, US has not been promised indefectibility, a secession can be a solution alternative to presidential election (like if electors only showed up from one or two states).

            What Lincoln said is perfectly sensible about the Church, and a bit out of place when it came to US – since Thirteen States themselves started the affair by another secession. And since seceding to small, European sized, Middle America sized, independent states, is not evidently against either moral or canon law, provided the provocation from White House is great enough.

            However, Church cannot use the solution of secession, since this goes against universality as well as indefectibility of Church.

            David Bawden’s criticism of certain other trads was that their act amounted to secession. For which the proper word in canon law is schism.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            You WOULD have the right, by virtue of emergency, to call for an election

            I could certainly try to organize one, but to pretend it was somehow justified by legal principles (as opposed to a simple attempt to discard the current government and create my own) is nonsense.

            you would also have to take into account how much the election was attended by people you consider to be reasonably patriotic.

            Really? So I’d be empowered and required to be the sole judge of patriotism (presumably based on whether or not people supported my bloodless coup – anyone who doesn’t isn’t patriotic)?

            However, Church cannot use the solution of secession, since this goes against universality as well as indefectibility of Church.

            David Bawden’s criticism of certain other trads was that their act amounted to secession. For which the proper word in canon law is schism.

            What he did is no different. The only distinction is that non-conclavist “sedes” admit that they’re rejecting the visible governance of the Church, whereas Bawden rejects it, and then says, “I am the true Church.”

            It’s like if the thirteen colonies said, “No, we’re not declaring independence from Britain. We are the true Britain, and those guys on the island in northwestern Europe are all pretenders to the title.”

            If Texas secedes, but insists that Texans (whether by birth or immigration) are the only true Americans, so they didn’t really secede – they just rejected all the “fake Americans” in the rest of North America… guess what? They still seceded.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “I could certainly try to organize one, but to pretend it was
            somehow justified by legal principles (as opposed to a simple attempt to
            discard the current government and create my own) is nonsense.”

            We differ on what exact legal and moral principles are.

            I support the pronouncement of the Burgos Junta in 1936.

            “What he did is no different. The only distinction is that non-conclavist “sedes” admit that they’re rejecting the visible governance of the Church, whereas Bawden rejects it, and then says, “I am the true Church.””

            Kissing Korans and taking Tilaks is “visible governance of the Church”?

            Revolutionising liturgy is “visible governance of the Church”?

            Sedes properly and David Bawden back then were both saying Church lacks on the universal level a visible governance (as it also does between death of Pius IX and election of Leo XIII, to take two popes none of us dispute). They were both rejecting Palmar – rightly or wrongly, I have come to believe rightly. They were both saying the tiers of authority next under the “apparent popes” are too corrupt by complicity to help. The difference is Sedes were saying “we must leave the problem to God” and DB said “God has given us a reason and knowledge to solve such a problem”.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “What was it that allowed Bawden, autocratically, to decide that one would be called, as well as where and when (one assumes in his own hometown…)?

            “When an ordinary conclave is called, the Cardinal Electors are summoned to Rome based on the residual authority of the deceased or retired Pontiff, embodied in the Canon. You say “the question of authority is waived” in an emergency, but that’s not coherent – perhaps the normal authority doesn’t exist, but there still must be some principle that decides who has the authority to issue a summons of this sort. What principle invested David Bawden with that authority? Was it simply “up for grabs” to the first person who decided to send out invitations?”

            His position would have been that by then it was.

            He was not denying that a cardinal had better right than he, but Oddi and Ottaviani had acted as if accepting Paul VI as Pope. He considered the first tier of authority below papacy as off, for this reasons.

            Next tier – bishops, including retired and even sedisvacantist ones.

            I suppose he sent out invitations to such as he knew, and would have left direction of conclave to them, had they responded.

            Note that some sedisvacantist bishops very much later did something like that, without David Bawden, and considering him as invalid both by procedure and by “heresy” of not being Feeneyite.

            That is the line leading to Alexander IX, the Argentina based Feeneyite claimant.

            But, if they could do that in 2005, why could they not do that in 1990, responding to the invitation of Bawden and relieving him of the charge since he was under them, as a layman?

            Some would of course have considered his person as suspect due to his fact of being former FSSPX. Some require former FSSPX to abjure as a heresy and to make the moves as if converting to the Catholic Church (as traditionally made when converting from Lutherans or Roumanian Orthodox). And FSSPX back then was engaged in very definitely, though resisting at least recognising “John Paul II”. He was NOT getting support from Four Bishops of Écône.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            Next tier – bishops, including retired and even sedisvacantist ones.

            I suppose he sent out invitations to such as he knew, and would have left direction of conclave to them, had they responded.

            So, first, again, what about the ones he didn’t know about? You’re basically saying that because he was unable to locate some of them, that therefore their input was not required. That still makes him the standard by which everything is being judged (even though, at that point, no one – not even you or he – claims that he was anything more than an ordinary layman).

            Second, you’re still claiming that he had the authority to determine that a conclave should be called, and therefore the decision of the bishops not to have one (under their direction or his) means he could just ignore them. If you acknowledge that the bishops had superior authority to his own, then why was he not bound by their decision not to hold a conclave? It can’t merely come back around to “Bawden believed that the situation was urgent enough” because that’s just one big circle (he had the authority to call a conclave because he decided it was past time for one, and he had the power to disregard the views of the bishops… because they disagreed with his own determinations????)

            But, if they could do that in 2005, why could they not do that in 1990, responding to the invitation of Bawden and relieving him of the charge since he was under them, as a layman?

            Perhaps they, with their valid (as far as you’re concerned, at least) episcopal authority, decided that 1990 was not the right time for a conclave, but 2005 was. (Of course, I’m not a “sede”, so I don’t believe the 2005 conclave was valid either… but that’s a different part of the argument.)

            Some would of course have considered…

            Thanks for the info, but I don’t think minutiae of “sede” politics will be a determining factor here.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “If you acknowledge that the bishops had superior authority to his own, then why was he not bound by their decision not to hold a conclave?”

            He considered – as do you – that their prolonged absence of active submission to papacy was leading to schism.

            “Second, you’re still claiming that he had the authority to determine that a conclave should be called”

            I consider, in cases of emergency questions of “whose authority” are for the moment waved aside and licitly so.

            I therefore disagree with your twisting what I said into a claim “he had authority”. Authority was sth he was trying to restore.

            Note, in order not to consider him as having believed a total break in authority, contrary to Matthew 28, he considered priests and bishops behind iron curtain were probably still wielding valid authority subjectively hung onto the wrong “pope”, and celebrating valid sacraments.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “First – what precedent? I’m even willing to accept (purely on
            principle) that one might exist, but not on the sole word and authority
            of David Bawden.”

            He is a good Church Historian. There was one conclave in the 14th C at which the lay electors so far outnumbered the clerical ones as to reduce these to practical insignificance. Do ask him for details, I have forgotten the reference.

            Back then I disputed this as a valid precedent, on the ground that there was at least a symbolic presence of clergy in that older conclave, while none at his own.

            “Second – again, we have David Bawden, not yet pope by anyone’s standard, setting himself up as an authoritative interpreter of canon law. The precedent permits it because he decided that it did.”

            Granted. And I have disputed that decision as wrong in the past.

            However, that would be the problem for any emergency measures.

            FSSPX opted for bishops acting as “bishops for ordination” (weihbischöfe) like those present in abbatial dioceses in Ireland under the abbot, all the while FSSPX is not an abbatial Irish monastery. Because Monseigneur Lefèbvre decided this was valid as a precedent.

            “Third, and perhaps most important – if laity are, by his interpretation,
            valid electors, then would he not then have been obliged to re-send
            invitations, and include “sede” laity as well?”

            As far as I know, he DID include sede laity, but I may be wrong.

            As far as I can guess, the laity left his invitation unattended because their bishops (yes, there are sede bishops) did so and in obedience to bishops.

            And of course, the question is : for how long would one be obliged to continue to send invitations?

          • Anthony Zarrella

            He is a good Church Historian. There was one conclave in the 14th C at which the lay electors so far outnumbered the clerical ones as to reduce these to practical insignificance. Do ask him for details, I have forgotten the reference.

            Back then I disputed this as a valid precedent, on the ground that there was at least a symbolic presence of clergy in that older conclave, while none at his own.

            And? How did you determine that your previous objection (which sounds like a reasonable one to me) was invalid?

            “Practical insignificance” is weasel words. There were clergy (and, I’m willing to bet, at least a handful of them were bishops or cardinals). There has never been a papal election entirely by laity.

            For Bawden to claim that “Well, we’ve had at least one papal election with very few clergy, so it’s OK to have one with none at all” is like saying, “Well, very weak tea is still tea, so tea leaves/extracts clearly aren’t required for something to be tea – therefore, I’ll boil some water and it will be tea.”

            Granted. And I have disputed that decision as wrong in the past.

            However, that would be the problem for any emergency measures.

            YES! That’s exactly my point!

            You seem to be looking at this all “bass-ackwards” – instead of saying, “OK, these ’emergency measures’ require someone to simply autocratically grant themselves authority that (by anyone’s reckoning) they have no prior legitimate claim to, and that’s ridiculous, so there’s no possibility of this sort of ’emergency measures’,” you instead start from “There must be ’emergency measures,’ and all such measures would require autocratic assumption of authority, therefore that must be OK.”

            Besides, while I obviously don’t think that people like Lefebvre have/had legitimate authority, at the very least they were basing their claim to authority on their valid episcopal ordination and on their “valid” (in the sense that they didn’t recognize their excommunications) ecclesiastical authority.

            They were merely saying, “We already have authority to some degree, and we have responsibility for our dioceses, so the emergency justifies us exceeding our authority.

            Bawden couldn’t say that, because he was a mere layman. He instead had to say, “I have no authority at all, and no people under my care, but this emergency justifies me in granting myself entirely new authority, even to the extent of binding those of superior ecclesiastical rank.”

            As far as I know, he DID include sede laity, but I may be wrong.

            Not according to any of the sources I’ve found (and I have looked him up over the course of our debate – I’d rather joust with a real person than a straw man, after all). They all say that he used an online list of “sede” clergy. Perhaps he invited “sede” laity who were personally known to him (such as the three non-family “electors”), but that hardly seems like enough of an effort for something so momentous as a papal conclave.

            To use the presidential election comparison again, it would be like if a “sovereign citizen” tried to hold a presidential election and drew up his voter rolls by Googling “list of ‘sovereign’ politicians” and then also invited the two or three “sovereigns” he happened to know in his private life. (If you don’t know about the “sovereign citizen” movement, you’re not missing much – suffice it to say they’re the American political equivalent of sedevacantists, only with even thinner justifications.)

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            // You seem to be looking at this all “bass-ackwards” – instead of saying,
            “OK, these ’emergency measures’ require someone to simply autocratically
            grant themselves authority that (by anyone’s reckoning) they have no
            prior legitimate claim to, and that’s ridiculous, so there’s no
            possibility of this sort of ’emergency measures’,” you instead start
            from “There must be ’emergency measures,’ and all such measures would require autocratic assumption of authority, therefore that must be OK.” //

            I did not reason “all such measures would require autocratic assumption of authority”, and I did not and do not consider DECIDING x is a precedent for y as such a thing.

            I also do not see how we can get around conclusion there IS an emergency.

            http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/palmer-not-convert-buried.htm

            Not to mention, God gave precisely Buenos Aires a Eucharistic Miracle (one reason to believe Novus Ordo is sometimes valid, even if hand communion is always or nearly so a bad thing), and Bergoglio neither then nor now when promoted has done ANYTHING to stop the kind of sacrilege which involuntarily often follows from hand communion.

            In Philippines, Hosts fell into the mud and one communion distributor was killed by the crowd.

            No emergency?

            You are kidding.

            Even “third eagle”/William Tapley, who considers Ratzinger was (and still is) true pope, a position I also tried and found reason to reject, considers Bergoglio as the false prophet.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            // How did you determine that your previous objection (which sounds like a reasonable one to me) was invalid? //

            I did NOT per se determine this.

            One of my theories about Pope Michael is that he started out as an antipope and became Pope at death of Pope Krav – like St Felix II.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            OK… except that St. Felix (the “II” is an error) was never pope, and anti-pope Felix died an antipope (and was not the same as the saint).

            This is all an error of non-infallible Church record-keeping.

            Saint Felix was a Roman martyr. When antipope Felix was recorded in the Liber Pontificalis, tradition (“small-t” – not infallible Tradition) had already become confused, and assigned him the moniker of “Felix II” (because they knew there was a Felix before him, and accidentally confused him for a pope).

            Moreover, antipope Felix is recorded to have established a church on the Via Aurelia – which happens to be where the earlier Felix was buried. So, when recording the Roman Martyrology, the two were accidentally conflated – and to “harmonize” the record of Felix the martyr with Felix the antipope, a martyrdom of the antipope was essentially invented (I don’t think on purpose – I assume they just “knew” he was a martyr, so they cobbled together what details they could find of unnamed martyrdom accounts from the era).

            Note: none of this impugns the Magisterium in any way. The Magisterium is neither authoritative nor infallible in declaring historical facts, the canonization of St. Felix was by martyrdom and not by decree (and thus, the infallible nature of canonization decrees does not come into play), and the inclusion of a second Felix in the martyrology was basically an extended copyists error.

            As proof that this assessment is correct, I offer two elements of proof:

            1) The error was corrected in the 1962 Martyrology and Roman Missal (which are primarily the product of the papacy of Pius XII, whom we both agree was a real pope, right? John XXIII issued the documents, but these books are years in the making and drew primarily on Pius XII’s preparations)

            2) More significantly, antipope Felix died on November 22 in 365 A.D. Pope Liberius died on September 24 in 366 A.D. This means there was simply no possibility for Felix to have become pope in the way you suggest. He was already dead when the reigning pontiff (Liberius) died (and was replaced by Pope Damasus I on October 1, only six days later, so even if Felix had been alive, his “pontificate” would have had to be six days long – and St. Damasus I would have been an antipope himself until Felix died, which is quite the slander to level against a Saint).

            So, again, I’ll maintain that it is impossible for an antipope to become pope simply by the office becoming vacant. The Church has always been quite clear (and you and I even hashed out this point before) – a pope is pope from the moment of his election. So either the election validly elevates the person to the papacy, or it accomplishes nothing at all (except schism and sacrilege).

            Either the 1990 conclave made Pope Michael the pope right then, or it did not do so at all. There’s no such thing as a “suspended” papal elevation that only takes effect when and if the See becomes vacant – it has never happened, and there is no reason to conclude that it ever could (aside from fallacious special-pleading).

            Besides, you responded to the wrong objection. I wasn’t asking how you determined that Bawden could be pope even though he was elected while Fabris was alive. I was asking how you determined that your previous (quite reasonable) objection to a lay-only conclave was invalid.

            As I said, I accept the “precedent” of a 14th Century conclave with very few clergy. But water with no tea leaves or extracts isn’t weak tea – it’s just not tea. Likewise, a conclave with very few clergy might be valid, but that doesn’t prove that a conclave with no clergy can be valid. There has never, in the entire history of the papacy, going back to Peter, been a pope chosen without the input and approval of at least some bishops – that’s just not how Apostolic Succession works. No one can give what they haven’t got.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            Krav WAS the stand up comedian? There were NOT two Mirko Fabris?

            You are sure of this? Your source is better than wikipedia? That is where I found out the “homonymous” Mirko Fabris – on whose article I found no reference to acting “Pope Krav”.

            Did he die or finish the show because he found there were serious parallels to it? Supposing you are right.

            It is actually – I just looked it up – krava which means cow. Krov means roof. Krvav means gory.

            I thought it was a word meaning “blood” – but that would have been Krvav, not Krav. I thought so because of Polish “krew”.

            Sorry, I studied Polish but never made it very far, and never studied Croatian at all.

            Now, if you are right, that strikes out one of the theories of where papacy has been this time.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            Krav WAS the stand up comedian? There were NOT two Mirko Fabris?

            You are sure of this? Your source is better than wikipedia? That is where I found out the “homonymous” Mirko Fabris – on whose article I found no reference to acting “Pope Krav”.

            I’m reasonably certain. My first source was admittedly Wikipedia (the article on “conclavism”), but the relevant portion does cite to a text (“Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements” by George D. Chryssides). I did search some more to make sure it wasn’t inaccurate, but I admit I can’t find the second article right now.

            There does appear to be some haziness in the details, but as near as I can tell, there’s clear consensus that a comedian Mirko Fabris, performing under the name Krav, is the same guy as “Pope Krav I”.

            Did he die or finish the show because he found there were serious parallels to it?

            As I said, difficult to find information on him. Everything I can find says that he “reigned” from 1978-2012, but nothing says clearly whether he died or merely relinquished his claim.

            Given that his “papacy” lasted 34 years, I’d assume the former, but if the comedian I’m finding most often when I search him is the right one, then perhaps he was simply “elected” in his 20’s and is now in his mid-to-late 50’s and got sick of the joke.

            The one I’m finding who was still active in stand-up as of 2011 looks too young even for that though – he looks maybe 10 years older than me, and I wasn’t born until 1986.

            Sorry, I studied Polish but never made it very far, and never studied Croatian at all.

            Oh, neither have I! I’m just relying on what little info I can find online, and the fact that my scan of available Croatian resources (probably much the same way you did) confirms the common consensus.

            Now, if you are right, that strikes out one of the theories of where papacy has been this time.

            Well, yes – in fact, the only theory, prior to 1990 (other than, of course, the “theory” that the papacy has been right in the Vatican all along). Unless, of course, you go even beyond conclavism to the mysticalists (people who have claimed that they were invested with the papacy by God or Mary or Peter in a vision)…

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “My first source was admittedly Wikipedia (the article on “conclavism”), but the relevant portion does cite to a text (“Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements” by George D. Chryssides).”

            OK, I for my part found Chryssides’ Mirko Fabris only in a section about Conclavist Popes and nothing about that in Mirko Fabris the comedian article. Nor did I see any reference to his performing under name of Krav.

            If it is the comedian, I think he may have got “sick of the joke” due to not liking comparison to real conclavists.

            “The one I’m finding who was still active in stand-up as of 2011 looks
            too young even for that though – he looks maybe 10 years older than me,
            and I wasn’t born until 1986.”

            That could argue they are distinct.

            “Well, yes – in fact, the only theory, prior to 1990 (other than,
            of course, the “theory” that the papacy has been right in the Vatican
            all along). Unless, of course, you go even beyond conclavism to the
            mysticalists (people who have claimed that they were invested with the
            papacy by God or Mary or Peter in a vision)…”

            I was a “mysticalist” adherent, as in Palmarian, back when rejecting Pope Michael.

            I provisionally left Palmarianism when learning their catechism endorses at least 8 dimensions. Antichrist seeing the world from the 4th, the Most Pure Virgin (their favourite way of referring to the BVM) from the 8th.

            St Augustine says there are 3 dimensions of space, just as there are 3 parts of time and 3 faculties in human psyche – in order to reflect the most Holy Trinity. I was NOT ditching St Augustine over Palmar.

            Now, back then Pope Michael rejected the Siri claim as impossible due to his keeping it secret. Now he has swung around on that one and said Siri claim could have been a true one, it ended (if it ever began) in 1989 with the death of Cardinal Siri or Pope in Red, and it would provide a bridge back to Pius XII. For him.

            I am less Pius XII-fanatic than he. While a Palmarian, I was excusing some of Pacelli’s acts as “forgeries the prisoner in the Vatican had to sign” – much as Montini’s “St Paul VI’s” Novus Ordo.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            Wait … Mirko Fabris comedian is born 1986 – so Mirko Fabris papal claimant is not he?

            I also saw some news Pope Krav had died.

            I have also considered Michel Colin as having been validly elected by God, taking the name Clement XV.

            Especially since I heard from Pope Michael that he was not simply peacefully succeeded by Gaston Tremblay, but he was forced to abdicate by the latter’s supporters. I then checked, he went back to France and his followers in Clémory did NOT follow Gaston Tremblay.

            So, Krav or Clement XV leaves us TWO theories about where papacy was up to 1990 (note, a Palmarian, as I was while I came to know Pope Michael, would not have considered the see vacant in 1990 either – that is what I had against him back then).

          • Anthony Zarrella

            Whoa… welcome back, Hans – haven’t seen you in quite some time.

            I have also considered Michel Colin as having been validly elected by God, taking the name Clement XV.

            On what proof? If I had declared myself Pope by divine revelation (at a time when you believed the see was vacant and unlikely/unable to be filled by the normal process), by what standard would you judge my claim? Would fidelity to (what you perceive as) pre-Vatican-II orthodoxy be the only requirement?

            In normal Catholic tradition, apparitions or any private revelations are subject to verification by the Church.

            Also, by definition, the question of who is a valid pope is one that is binding on all people and necessary for the salvation of souls, right? But that would make it a general revelation – and Church teaching since long before V-II holds (as dogmatic truth, not subject to reformation on any basis including necessity) that general revelation ended with John’s death on Patmos.

            So, Krav or Clement XV leaves us TWO theories about where papacy was up to 1990

            Yes… one theory that requires us to believe in a papacy that has so little public record that not only can we not verify his election, but we can’t even figure out who he actually was (or whether he was or was not identical to a stand-up comedian).

            And a second theory that requires us to believe that a man is Pope because God revealed it to him (and we have only his word for it). Which would require us to believe that the infallible (pre-V-II) Church erroneously defined general revelation as having ceased/closed.

            And in any case, no person who was a valid subject (by which I mean one who acknowledged the papacy) of either of those previous “popes” was involved in the election of David Bawden.

            So if either of them was a pope, then you’re actually worse off because it would mean Bawden was elected by formal schismatics.

            But if neither of them was a pope, then you’re back to the “where was the papacy all those years and why did no one else call a valid council?” problem.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            « If I had
            declared myself Pope by divine revelation (at a time when you
            believed the see was vacant and unlikely/unable to be filled by the
            normal process), by what standard would you judge my claim? Would
            fidelity to (what you perceive as) pre-Vatican-II orthodoxy be the
            only requirement? »

            1) Such fidelity in
            you.

            2) Lack of such
            fidelity in other claimants.

            3) Possibly some
            external process of ecclesiastic verification – without which I
            don’t think Michel Colin would have had many followers.

            There
            are two ways to explain why he was divinely appointed Pope in 1950
            (year by which Pacelli was no more Pope, on this view) and why he
            appeared only sth like 1962.

            a) he made it up in 1962 ;

            b) he waited, among
            other things on some process of verification (which may have only, or
            may have among other things, included others than himself concluding
            Montini could not be Pope).

            « Yes… one
            theory that requires us to believe in a papacy that has so little
            public record that not only can we not verify his election, but we
            can’t even figure out who he actually was (or whether he was or was
            not identical to a stand-up comedian). »

            There was certainly
            some public record, since he was counted by one scholar as first out
            in the conclavist field.

            You yourself gave the reason why he’s
            not the comedian : that one is born too late. Mirko and Fabris
            sound so exotic to us, there must have been only one – but Mirko
            and Fabris may be rather common in Zagreb. I had actually concluded
            myself he was the comedian and therefore given him up.

            « And a second
            theory that requires us to believe that a man is Pope because God
            revealed it to him (and we have only his word for it). Which would
            require us to believe that the infallible (pre-V-II) Church
            erroneously defined general revelation as having
            ceased/closed. »

            False, since the revelation is a
            private revelation.

            A private revelation
            decided that true king of France was the French and not English
            claimant, another claimed that true (and undisputed) Pope had to go
            back to Rome. Sts Joan and Bridget do not add to the public
            revelation. They were however vital for the Catholicity of their
            times.

            « And in any
            case, no person who was a valid subject (by which I mean one who
            acknowledged the papacy) of either of those previous “popes”
            was involved in the election of David Bawden. »

            True, if by
            « subject » you mean humanly knowing such.

            In the case of
            Colin, he died in 1974 and I do not know of a successor. If there was
            none, and I am ready to look for one, if given the chance, see was
            vacant 74 – 90 or 16 years, instead of 32 (supposing Pius XII
            remained Pope to his death).

            In the case of Krav,
            if he had no successor, a previous antipope may have become Pope by
            default.

            Confer how St Felix
            II was elected initially as an Antipope, then « began to be
            Pope » (Pope, not Antipope!) when Liberius appeared to be an
            Apostate, then stepped down when Liberius cleared himself, then was
            his successor. This first « began to be Pope » means an
            Antipope from election on may later become Pope because he’s there
            and the see is obviously vacant.

            So, if Krav was Pope, the see
            became vacant in 2012, a few months after Antipope Michael had been
            consecrated bishop and could take up the charge of now becoming, by
            default, the true Pope. Hence Pope Michael from then on.

            « So if either
            of them was a pope, then you’re actually worse off
            because it would mean Bawden was elected by formal schismatics. »

            Not knowing they
            were such, and in good faith.

            They had discounted Clement XV
            on the news (believed by Pope Michael to recently) that he was
            displaced by Gaston Tremblay and just accepted that, so that this
            heretic is successor of the Colin line. My point is, as I learned
            this last month, that if Clement XV was forced to resign, he was not
            really resigning validly, and after returning to France, he did not
            accept « Jean-Grégoire XVII ».

          • Anthony Zarrella

            2) Lack of such fidelity in other claimants.

            Which does nothing to dispel the possibility that two or more claimants could both adhere to those principles…

            3) Possibly some external process of ecclesiastic verification – without which I don’t think Michel Colin would have had many followers.

            Oh? And why not? David Bawden had no ecclesiastic verification of his “papacy”, but he has “many” followers (or at least, numbers comparable to Colin’s).

            Besides, you’re working backwards again – you’re basically telling me, “I have no idea what, if any, verification Colin’s claims received – but he must have received some, or else he wouldn’t have been seen as valid.”

            My response is that by your own estimation, there have been mysticalists who gathered a following even though they were not valid popes – so how can you assume that Colin was not among them? Is it merely because Bawden says so (as of this month) and therefore it must be true?

            There are two ways to explain why he was divinely appointed Pope in 1950 (year by which Pacelli was no more Pope, on this view)

            Why?

            Vatican II was called in 1962 – what did Pope Pius XII do prior to 1950 that allegedly forfeited the papacy?

            All I can find of note in 1950 is that he infallibly declared the Assumption of Mary – surely you don’t intend to condemn a great servant of God as a heretic and antipope for dogmatizing a pious and traditional Catholic belief that predated him by centuries???

            Or do you mean Humani Generis, in which he allowed for the possibility that God could have used natural processes rather than direct miraculous intervention to create humanity? Is that the scandalous heresy you’d oust him for?

            Everything else I can find during or prior to 1950 was either strictly orthodox or quite simply unremarkable. Do you have issues with Mystici Corporis Christi? Or perhaps with Divino Afflante Spiritu? Mediator Dei? Mit brennender Sorge?

            he waited, among other things on some process of verification (which may have only, or may have among other things, included others than himself concluding Montini could not be Pope).

            You’ve got your popes mixed up. Montini became Pope Paul VI, and wasn’t elected until 1963. Roncalli was John XXIII who called Vatican II in 1962.

            If Colin waited until 1962 to declare, because he was waiting to decide that Montini was an unfit pope… then he jumped the gun by a year.

            Besides, how does that work, exactly? Is his own assessment of Roncalli’s papacy verification enough? How many people would have to agree with him? Do bishops count extra (and if so, which of them supported him – I doubt he’d be a mysticalist at all if claiming a conclave had been an option…)?

            False, since the revelation is a private revelation.

            A private revelation decided that true king of France was the French and not English claimant, another claimed that true (and undisputed) Pope had to go
            back to Rome. Sts Joan and Bridget do not add to the public revelation. They were however vital for the Catholicity of their times.

            Sure, but neither of them made claims that were binding on the consciences and souls of all people everywhere.

            A private revelation declaring who is King in France has absolutely no relevance to someone in China – and even in France, someone who continued to support the English claimant would not have been a schismatic or a heretic, nor subject to any ecclesiastical penalty whatsoever.

            Likewise, the location of the papacy might indeed be important – but the critical distinction is that the papacy was valid whether or not it returned to Rome. Again, the revelation was only binding on those to whom it was given – it did not declare new truth for all Catholics everywhere.

            (And I think you’re conflating St. Catherine of Siena, who urged Pope Gregory XI to return the papacy to Rome, with St. Bridget of Sweden, who was a visionary, and predicted the Vatican city-state – neither said that it was a divine command that Pope Gregory XI move the papacy back.)

            The issue is not whether a revelation is “vital for the Catholicity of their times” – the issue is whether it binds all people, such that refusal to accept it is in and of itself an act of apostasy.

            A mystical elevation to the papacy would be binding on all the faithful – because submission to the Supreme Pontiff is an absolute requirement for every Catholic, and so a vision declaring that the apparent Pope is false and that some relative nobody is the “real” pope would be absolutely in the category of “general” or “public” revelation. Which the Church has always maintained cannot happen.

            Even the various fully-orthodox Marian apparitions are merely private revelations – even Fatima. That’s not my opinion – it’s the doctrine of the Church. Any Catholic is free to disbelieve the Fatima apparition at no peril to his immortal soul.

            But by your lights, one who disbelieved the revelation claimed by Michel Colin would be in a state of at least material schism, if not formal, and would be in grave danger of all manner of sacrilege by obedience to the (allegedly false) authority of the (allegedly false) Pope in Rome. Those are not the characteristics of a merely private revelation.

            In the case of Colin, he died in 1974 and I do not know of a successor. If there was none, and I am ready to look for one, if given the chance, see was
            vacant 74 – 90 or 16 years, instead of 32 (supposing Pius XII remained Pope to his death).

            But, you can’t suppose that Pius XII remained Pope to his death, and also support the claim of Colin.

            Because if Colin claims to have received a vision declaring him Pope in 1950 (and he did announce in 1950 – I checked – he didn’t wait until 1962), then he was an antipope for at least 8 years. This would also mean that God Himself allegedly declared one man to be pope while another Pope still validly occupied the Petrine See.

            So, you must either come up with some reason that Pius XII was already not the true pope in 1950, or reject Colin’s claim. There is no way around that dilemma.

            And if Bawden is now supporting Colin’s claim, then I would contend that he must do the same – either figure out why Pius XII lost the See, or reject Colin.

            For Bawden, it’s an even bigger issue – because it is widely regarded (since at least the First Vatican Council) that one of the subjects of infallibility is determining who is a valid pope and what is a valid Council. So if Bawden is officially saying Colin was the true Pope from 1950-1974, and it turns out Bawden is wrong… then it proves he lacks papal infallibility, and therefore cannot truly be Pope.

            Confer how St FelixII was elected initially as an Antipope, then « began to be Pope » (Pope, not Antipope!) when Liberius appeared to be an Apostate, then stepped down when Liberius cleared himself, then was his successor.

            This makes no sense at all.

            You’re saying:

            1) A valid Pope (Liberius), who had not actually done anything to lose the papacy (i.e. he never truly did apostasize or espouse heresy)

            2) Lost the papacy merely because he was popularly believed to have been a heretic and/or apostate,

            3) Then was replaced (“by default”) by an antipope (Felix) who had never been validly elected.

            4) Then, once everyone realized that Liberius was never an apostate or heretic, he “automatically” got the papacy back (and no, Felix never “stepped down” – he continued to hold himself as pope).

            5) Then, upon his death, this antipope became his valid successor (again, automatically, with no valid election)… despite having been dead for a year! (Liberius died in the autumn of 366 – Felix had been dead since the autumn of 365).

            First off, if Liberius never did relinquish the faith (which we must agree he did not – this is both settled history and the teaching of Bl. Pope Pius IX [1846-1878] and Pope Benedict XV [1914-1922]), then he never lost the papacy. Mere public doubt cannot dethrone the Vicar of Christ. Therefore, there never was a vacancy for Felix to fill.

            Second, you still assert absolutely no evidence in theology, canon law, or doctrine for the frankly incredible proposition that an antipope (i.e. a formal schismatic, “elected” by a schismatic conclave) can “begin to be pope” simply because the See is vacant.

            By your logic, Clement III (antipope – elected 1084) “began to be pope” when St. Pope Gregory VII died in 1085 (because everyone can agree that the See is “obviously vacant” when one pope dies and another has yet to be elected).

            He was then the true pope for at least a year (until the election of Bl. Pope Victor III in 1086). However, if Clement III was the true pope, then it was illicit to attempt to elect another. Clement III lived until 1100 – this would mean that Bl. Pope Victor III, Bl. Pope Urban II, and Pope Paschal II (all elected between 1085 and 1100) were all schismatic antipopes (though, still by your logic, Paschal II would have become the true pope a year into his “antipontificate” when Clement III died).

            The same logic would apply to antipope Clement VII (elected 1378, “became” pope in 1389 when Pope Urban VI died), making Pope Boniface IX an antipope.

            Also antipope Benedict XIII (elected 1394, “became” pope in 1404 when Boniface IX died), making both Popes Gregory XII and Martin V antipopes.

            Lastly, antipope Felix V – elected 1439, “became” pope in 1447 when Pope Eugene IV died, and would have made Pope Nicholas V an antipope.

            Of these counter-examples, antipope Benedict XIII is the most important. Why? Because if I were in your shoes, the next argument I’d make would be that an antipope becomes pope only if the See is vacant for an extended period and seems unlikely to be filled by the normal process. But when Pope Gregory XII died in 1415, there was a two-year interregnum before Martin V was elected, and reasonable observers may well have believed that it was unlikely that the squabbling cardinals would be able to elect a new pope any time soon.

            So, if Krav was Pope, the see became vacant in 2012, a few months after Antipope Michael had been consecrated bishop and could take up the charge of now becoming, by default, the true Pope.

            Again, this notion that a formal schismatic (as any antipope is, by definition) can become Pope “by default” simply because the See is vacant and there are no other valid claimants is a notion wholly unsupported by theology, canon law, doctrine, or reason.

            It makes sense to you only because you’re looking for any possible explanation for how Bawden can be a valid Pope.

            No precedent for an entirely lay council? No problem! There was a council once where there were more laity than clergy, so we’ll just cite that as proof that the minimum number of clergy is really zero.

            No precedent for an antipope becoming Pope? No problem! There was an antipope back in the 300s who got mixed up with a Saint by the same name, so let’s just assume he must have eventually become a real pope, and then we can spin a story about how it must have happened.

            They had discounted Clement XV on the news (believed by Pope Michael to recently) that he was displaced by Gaston Tremblay and just accepted that, so that this heretic is successor of the Colin line.

            OK… why does that matter? You can now prove a pope invalid because his successor is a heretic?

            Anyway, you do realize, right, that Michel Colin didn’t only claim to be Pope by virtue of a vision. He also claimed, way back in 1936 (only a year after his ordination) that he had been ordained a bishop by Christ Himself.

            Now, I don’t know the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law all that well (and it’s not easily searchable), but I’m pretty sure that pretending to the office of bishop incurs excommunication. And this was back in 1936, when Pius XI was still Pope (and he’s someone we agree was 100% valid, right?).

            This would mean that a man who either was excommunicated (latae sententiae) or at least was guilty of an unrepented mortal sin which was eligible for the penalty of excommunication (ferendae sententiae) supposedly was given the papacy by God.

            Unless you believe that Jesus Himself supernaturally ordained a bishop… for the very first time in history since St. Paul himself… at a time when we both agree that the Church had valid authority and valid means of selecting and ordaining bishops…

            Oh, and one more blow to the “he was an antipope but then ‘became’ pope” theory: if Pius XII was still pope in 1950, then he imposed a ferendae sententiae excommunication on Colin in that year – and not just excommunication: excommunication vitandus (meaning that faithful Catholics were forbidden to associate with him).

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            You get logic backwards.

            By my own estimation, there are certainly claimants (including those in Vatican!) whose ecclesiastic check has not been detecting the shit it should.

            But, by my own estimation, there is no such thing as a papal claimant getting followers so far without any kind of ecclesiastic check up.

            Keep certain things apart. Bawden’s conclave was not private revelation based, he did a canonic check up about the situation.

            Colin’s claim was private revelation based, he was therefore not in a position to do all the check up himself.

            So, I presume among the first who eventually adhered to him, there were people doing some kind of check up.

            So there has been for Bawden after conclave, since two bishops ordaining and consecrating him would hardly have done so if they had not done any kind of check up canonically speaking about his claim.

            By “lack of such in other claimants”, I meant first of all, those in Rome.

            That is pretty definite by St Robert Bellarmine : what you are not a MEMBER of, you are not a HEAD of and a heretic is not even member of the Church.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            So, I presume among the first who eventually adhered to him, there were people doing some kind of check up.

            “You presume”. And that’s my issue.

            You have no evidence of this – you just assume that someone must have done their homework.

            And let’s say someone did do some sort of investigation. What proves that that individual (or those individuals) was not just a kook? People can have all sorts of reasons for believing things.

            I agree that he wouldn’t have gotten a following if his followers hadn’t had some reason. But that’s a far cry from proving that they had good reasons.

            Also, at their height, the community consisted of roughly 75 people (including children) – that’s hardly a vast consensus.

            Bawden’s conclave was not private revelation based, he did a canonic check up about the situation.

            HE did. Again, he took it upon himself to be a judge in his own case and to declare his own cause righteous.

            Only a valid pope can do that with respect to canon law (i.e. raise an issue and decide it himself), and by your own admission, Bawden was not pope yet (since this was in order to determine if there could even be a conclave).

            So there has been for Bawden after conclave, since two bishops ordaining and consecrating him would hardly have done so if they had not done any kind of check up canonically speaking about his claim.

            At least one of those bishops was an “Old Catholic” (a group which left the Church after the First Vatican Council, and therefore is wrong by your definition or mine), and as to the other, I seem to remember you said (or perhaps I read somewhere) that he agreed to ordain Bawden but did not become a follower (in other words, it sounds a bit more like a “mercenary” ordain-er than someone who was actually convinced that Bawden was Pope).

            In either case, while these men are probably valid (though illicit) bishops, it seems clear that neither one of them is a great “expert witness” for Bawden’s case.

            By “lack of such in other claimants”, I meant first of all, those in Rome.

            That is pretty definite by St Robert Bellarmine : what you are not a MEMBER of, you are not a HEAD of and a heretic is not even member of the Church.

            Yes, I looked into this just recently. Do you know what it is that Bawden claims disqualified Roncalli (Pope John XXIII)?

            Statements (that is, not formal teachings, just commentary), made as a cardinal, 20 years before his election (meaning he could well have privately abandoned those opinions in the meantime), which appeared to put Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy on the same level as Catholicism (that is, it wasn’t even an express heresy – simply something that could have been interpreted in a heretical fashion).

            By that logic, a great many popes have probably been heretics, including some that we both agree were valid popes.

            Lastly, bear in mind the distinction between formal heresy and material heresy. Material heresy is any refusal of a proposition definitively taught by the Church – but to be formal heresy, one must know that one’s position is incompatible with that of the Church. Merely misinterpreting Church teaching (even grievously) is not culpable heresy, and certainly does not put one outside the Church.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “I agree that he wouldn’t have gotten a following if his followers hadn’t had some reason. But that’s a far cry from proving that they had good reasons.”

            I wasn’t proving there were good reasons. I was just replying to your assumption (implied in your criticism) that the private revelation would have been not duly checked in any way at all by anyone except the one receiving it.

            As he was a priest, even if he had lied, he would have known he needed some kind of check.

            “Also, at their height, the community consisted of roughly 75 people (including children) – that’s hardly a vast consensus.”

            Whose? Colinist or Bawdenite?

            I was never referring to any vast consensus among millions of Catholics anyway.

            “HE did. Again, he took it upon himself to be a judge in his own case and to declare his own cause righteous.”

            As far as he at least pro forma hoped, there could have been bishops arriving at conclave and one of them could have been elected. It would not have been HIS cause, even if it was already his crusade.

            “Only a valid pope can do that with respect to canon law (i.e. raise an issue and decide it himself),”

            No, there is such a thing as emergency (like one arising if the Vatican is occupied by sham Popes who are obvious heretics), and in such a case anyone seeing an emergency has a right to intervene.

            “and by your own admission, Bawden was not pope yet (since this was in order to determine if there could even be a conclave).”

            And therefore, though it was his crusade, it was not his cause, not his personal interest that was at stake.

            “Statements (that is, not formal teachings, just commentary), made as a cardinal, 20 years before his election (meaning he could well have privately abandoned those opinions in the meantime), which appeared to put Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy on the same level as Catholicism (that is, it wasn’t even an express heresy – simply something that could have been interpreted in a heretical fashion).”

            OK, indifferentism is a heresy, and he thinks Cum ex Apostolatus applies.

            My case against Ronally is a §6 (Pacem in Terris unless it was Mater at Magistra) which says universe at large is ruled by blind laws in amoral necessity.

            “By that logic, a great many popes have probably been heretics, including some that we both agree were valid popes.”

            Like?

            “Material heresy is any refusal of a proposition definitively taught by the Church – but to be formal heresy, one must know that one’s position is incompatible with that of the Church.”

            As a cardinal he was probably already by the then discipline a bishop and obliged to know all of the Catholic doctrine (as previously defined by Magisterium).

            Btw, can you find a source exactly quoting the statement?

          • Anthony Zarrella

            I wasn’t proving there were good reasons. I was just replying to your assumption (implied in your criticism) that the private revelation would have been not duly checked in any way at all by anyone except the one receiving it.

            And I’m not arguing with “checked” – I’m arguing with “duly checked”.

            I’m sure someone made some sort of inquiries – but that doesn’t mean that anyone qualified made the necessary sort of inquiries.

            You’re basically saying, “It stands to reason that Colin’s followers would have satisfied themselves as to his validity.” OK, so far so good…

            But then you imply, “Therefore, there is good reason to believe that his claims were at least minimally credible.”

            That’s where you lost me. I mean, I’m sure L. Ron Hubbard’s followers are quite convinced of the validity of his claims… but that doesn’t make Scientology anything more than a laughable crock of BS.

            Whose? Colinist or Bawdenite?

            Colinist. The “Apostles of Infinite Love”.

            Not that Bawden’s numbers are much better – by his own interviews, he’s got somewhere between 30 and 100 followers, worldwide.

            As far as he at least pro forma hoped, there could have been bishops arriving at conclave and one of them could have been elected. It would not have been HIS cause, even if it was already his crusade.

            I’m not even talking about his election – I’m talking about his ability to even call a conclave with any degree of binding authority.

            He and one other (can’t recall her name at the moment – Theresa something, I think) wished to call a conclave. So they themselves investigated the matter, and they themselves determined that they themselves had the authority to do so.

            Everyone they invited (besides Mr. and Mrs. Bawden, and the couple from down the street) obviously disagreed… but by Bawden and whatshername’s own (pre-papal) authority, it was determined that their disagreement was simply error, and thus disqualified them from having a valid say in the putative conclave.

            There is no precedent – not one single shred in all 2,000 years of Church history – for a layman (with the assistance and consent of a laywoman) to simply declare himself that sort of binding authority.

            No, there is such a thing as emergency (like one arising if the Vatican is occupied by sham Popes who are obvious heretics), and in such a case anyone seeing an emergency has a right to intervene.

            Again, not one shred of precedent.

            There are cases in which canonical requirements are suspended due to necessity – but there is no case that you can point to where a person utterly without authority can simply seize authority by reason of necessity. Especially a layperson without the consent of a single, solitary clergyman.

            Point me to a single example that proves me wrong.

            And please, don’t waste both your time and mine by citing the “emergency jurisdiction” arguments of the SSPX – they made it up just like Bawden did.

            I mean an example in which the duly constituted Church hierarchy has historically approved (even retroactively) anything that is even remotely like what Bawden did.

            And therefore, though it was his crusade, it was not his cause, not his personal interest that was at stake.

            Sure it was – it was his personal interest in being able to call a conclave.

            I honestly have no opinion as to whether I think he intended to put himself forward all along, or whether he truly did only stand for election because no one else showed. I don’t think it matters.

            What matters is whether he had the authority to call and constitute a conclave in the first place – because if he didn’t, then it wasn’t a real conclave, no matter who attended.

            And no one decided that question but him (and Theresa someone-or-other). Or rather, every “sede” bishop on his list did make a ruling on that question… and they ruled against him, deciding that his summons to a conclave had no more force than a demand that they show up for tea and biscuits would have.

            OK, indifferentism is a heresy, and he thinks Cum ex Apostolatus applies.

            And if Roncalli had actually affirmed indifferentism, then Cum ex Apostolatus Officio would absolutely apply (unless he had subsequently renounced and validly confessed that heresy prior to his election).

            But saying something that sounds like a heresy, based on a particular interpretation is not the same as actually espousing heresy.

            For example, I can say, “Jesus was a Nazarene man, who lived from approximately 3 B.C. to 30 A.D., founded a new religious movement, and was executed by the Romans.”

            This might sound like I’m espousing the heresy of denying Jesus’s divinity (I don’t think there’s a formal name for it – it’s more than just Arianism). But I have not said one single word that is not true according to Church doctrine. I never said that Jesus was only a man, or that He didn’t rise again after He was executed.

            Now, that leaves two possible interpretations of my statement:

            1) I’m a heretic, and I didn’t mention divinity or resurrection because I don’t believe in them, or

            2) I’m guilty of nothing more than shoddy rhetoric – I spoke only of Jesus’s mortal life because that was the only topic I was discussing, and I simply failed to realize (or perhaps failed to care) that this way of speaking might give scandal. If asked directly, I would absolutely affirm the divinity of Jesus and His resurrection.

            In the case of Cdl. Roncalli, I don’t know precisely which statements of his Bawden objected to, but I suspect it was something similar – a case where he could have been speaking heresy, or he could have been saying something entirely orthodox, and simply didn’t realize or didn’t care that it would give the wrong impression.

            If he didn’t care, it was certainly a sin (that of scandal), but merely being a manifest sinner does not disqualify one from the papacy (look at some of the Renaissance popes…).

            To convict him of heresy, you’d have to do one of two things:

            A) Somehow prove that he subjectively, in his own mind, held heretical beliefs, or

            B) Demonstrate a formal statement of his which lacks any possibility of being read in an orthodox fashion (an off-the-cuff statement, or even an informal letter would not count, because one does not become a heretic by misspeaking, nor even by thoughtfully putting forth a heretical idea because you fail to realize that there is a point of doctrine against it).

            I don’t think you can do either one.

            My case against Ronally is a §6 (Pacem in Terris unless it was Mater at Magistra) which says universe at large is ruled by blind laws in amoral necessity.

            It is Pacem in Terris, and this is the line you want:

            But the mischief is often caused by erroneous opinions. Many people think that the laws which govern man’s relations with the State are the same as those which regulate the blind, elemental forces of the universe. But it is not so; the laws which govern men are quite different.

            First, Pope John XXIII isn’t making any doctrinal statement about the forces of the universe – he’s referring to the beliefs of others. I agree that he implies that he agrees that the universe is, by and large, governed by scientific principles – but an oblique implication does not a heresy make.

            Second, the forces of the universe are blind, elemental forces – unless you think that God directly and immanently wills the trajectory of each atom at each instant.

            God created a universe that runs by physical laws – I don’t see how that detracts from His power or majesty in any way. He could “reach in” at any moment and alter the workings of things – but there is no reason to assume that He must (nor, indeed, is that at all traditional doctrine – the Church has never condemned science, and has in fact been a staunch supporter of it).

            For you to condemn this as heresy, you pretty much have to prove that it is an infallible doctrine of the Church that God did not write physical laws into the universe, such that they can function without His direct intervention. And I know you can’t find that anywhere, because it’s just not there.

            “By that logic, a great many popes have probably been heretics, including some that we both agree were valid popes.”

            Like?

            Like Liberius, for one.

            Another example would be either Nicholas III or John XXII (depending on which one you would perceive as “seeming orthodox” and which “seems like a heretic”). [Note – this is John XXII (twenty-second), from the 1300s, not John XXIII (twenty-third, a.k.a. Roncalli)]

            Nicholas III seemed to give doctrinal assent to the belief of one branch of the early Franciscans, who argued that Jesus and the Apostles owned absolutely no property, either individually or in common, and that this was (by way of perfect example) the ideal state in which a Christian should live.

            John XXII then expressly refuted that notion, and considered it ridiculous (and demanded that the Franciscans take possession of their own property, rather than continue the elaborate fiction that everything they ate or wore actually belonged directly to the Pope).

            Now, what actually was true is that Nicholas III’s decree wasn’t properly a doctrinal definition. But I’m sure John XXII appeared to be espousing heresy to a great many people.

            As a cardinal he was probably already by the then discipline a bishop and obliged to know all of the Catholic doctrine (as previously defined by Magisterium).

            Yes, but he was not obliged to be an expert logician, philosopher, or theologian.

            It is entirely commonplace for someone to know a set of facts backwards and forwards, but to fail to realize that a given proposition is incompatible with those facts (or even to come to a thought-out conclusion that it is compatible, but fail to recognize the flaws in their own logic).

            Errors of reasoning are not heresy.

            If I know that the Church teaches X, Y, and Z as infallible doctrines, and I posit Q as a theological opinion that I sincerely believe is compatible with X, Y, and Z, I am not a heretic if I happen to be wrong.

            Besides, it is even possible that Pope John XXIII did not fully know each and every doctrine of the Church – perhaps on some level he was “obliged to,” but failing to be well-catechized would also not make him a heretic. (I’m not saying that’s the theory I’m running with – I’m just saying it’s possible)

            If a valid conclave were to elect an illiterate country bumpkin as Pope, he would not fail to become Pope because he did not know the doctrines of the Church thoroughly, nor would he forfeit the papacy if he were to advance an idea that he was innocently unaware was heretical (though, of course, he would be divinely protected from officially defining that error).

            And really, how many people, even theologians, can truly say they are intimately familiar with everything the Church has ever taught? You could spend your whole life studying Aquinas alone, and then another lifetime on Augustine, and still never have even touched upon Gregory the Great.

            Really, it comes down to this:
            1) Heresy is an internal attitude, so it is inherently impossible to judge a person to be a heretic unless they manifest that heresy through unambiguous outward signs.

            2) Manifestations of heresy come in two forms
            A) Direct denial of defined doctrine – This would amount to openly stating that some defined doctrine is simply false (which I think we can both agree no Vatican pope has done).
            B) Maintaining a proposition that conflicts with the correct interpretation of a defined doctrine.

            3) In the latter case, only the hierarchical Church can make that judgment. It is up to the Church to declare whether a given interpretation of Her own doctrines is correct, permissible, or heretical.

            4) Therefore, for the pope to become a formal heretic (that is, one who knowingly and culpably maintains heretical ideas), he would have to directly deny a previously-defined doctrine – because in the case of merely implicit conflict, there is no one in the Church higher than he, by whom such a judgment could be made (and any interpretation of doctrine that has not been expressly excluded by the Church is one which Catholics may hold in good faith).

            Btw, can you find a source exactly quoting the statement?

            What statement? The one by Cdl. Roncalli, to which Bawden objects? I should be asking you.

            I just read a journalist’s summary of an interview with Bawden, which said that he rejected Roncalli as a valid papal candidate on the basis of statements he had made as a Cardinal which “seemed to” place Catholicism on equal footing with Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

            I’d like to reiterate that both Christian charity and the heuristic principle of interpretive charity would counsel that when a person says a thing, and it seems like it could mean something bad, but it might not, then we should assume it doesn’t mean the bad thing, unless there is ample evidence to indicate that it probably does.

            This goes double when it comes to deciding that a pope is a heretic – if there’s any interpretation of his words that is not heretical, we should assume that’s what he meant (absent very clear evidence to the contrary).

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            Btw, I did not adress fact that two of the other laymen were close relatives.

            I am aware of no canon law against normal electors (i e cardinals) voting for close kin, and the canon against nepotism does not apply, since appointing a curate under oneself as bishop or appointing a bishop or cardinal under oneself as pope are distinct from electing a pope above oneself. The canons about nepotism are not formulated so as to prohibit the latter.

            If they had been David Bawden would have known it.

            He is and was also back then a fairly good canonist.

            Note, you may disagree with his conclusion, but you cannot deny he had done his homework as the US phrase seems to be.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            The canons about nepotism are not formulated so as to prohibit the latter.

            My point wasn’t about canonical validity (not in this particular issue). It was about plausibility.

            If you could say that people from far corners of the world came to his conclave, but that there were only six of them, then perhaps you could plausibly argue that those six followed sublime urgings of the Spirit to respond in faith to Bawden’s call.

            On the other hand, if the only people who came were him, his parents, the co-originator of the conclave idea (Ms. Benns), and one other married couple (who, based on probabilities, I would guess were family friends), then it really lends a lot more credence to the alternative theory – that everyone who got Bawden’s invitations just said, “Who the heck does this loon think he is?” and tossed them in the trash.

            Really, if he was unable to persuade even one of his invitees, and had to rely on rounding up his own friends (probably into his own living room), then you have to admit that casts a lot of doubt on his claim to validity.

            Note, you may disagree with his conclusion, but you cannot deny he had done his homework as the US phrase seems to be.

            Actually, I can. The Council of Trent condemned as heresy the notion that anyone could lay claim to any ecclesiastical office without “ecclesiastical and canonical authority,” Pope Pius VI decreed that anyone who holds that “the power of ecclesiastical ministry and of rule is derived from the community of the faithful [i.e. laity]” is to be condemned as a heretic, and Pope Pius XII decreed that even if a layman were to be elected pope by valid authority, he could not accept the election unless he were first proven to be fit for ordination (and the very notion of “proof” in a juridical sense requires some authority to whom the proof is to be submitted).

            Now, perhaps you can even make a valid argument concerning Bawden’s alleged right to suspend or circumvent the rules of mere Canon Law when dealing with an emergency unforeseen by its legislators (obviously I don’t think so, and neither do even a majority of “sedes”, but let’s assume you can).

            But infallible doctrines and dogmas (such as the voluminous Tridentine list of anathematized heresies) are not subject to dismissal by “necessity.” The Council of Trent (whose authority I assume even “sedes” acknowledge) did not say that no one could attain an ecclesiastical office without ecclesiastical and canonical authority unless such authority is absent or in dereliction of duty, or unless there is some pre-Tridentine precedent that you can point to to authorize it.

            It said no one can – period.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “the alternative theory – that everyone who got Bawden’s invitations just
            said, “Who the heck does this loon think he is?” and tossed them in the
            trash.”

            It is not an implausible idea at all, but the idea is not “alternative”.

            It is not a valid refuation of the idea he had of a conclave.

            I am not impressed by his pastoral, but that is maybe what the Church gets if people act like you describe instead of actually going to a necessary emergency conclave.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            You’re still basically insisting that (under the circumstances you believe were in effect) any Catholic, anywhere has the right to call for a conclave (simply by virtue of being the first contestant to hit the buzzer, so to speak), and the power to compel (with binding moral force) the attendance of every faithful Catholic – merely on his own determination that a sufficient emergency exists (and then anyone who disagrees is simply declared to have had insufficient faith, and dismissed).

            So, if some “faithful” (i.e. “sede”) Catholic on the Tibetan steppe had sent out invitations before Bawden, then every faithful Catholic would have been compelled to travel to the highlands of Tibet (at personal expense, no less) to attend that conclave?

            For that matter, what if two people sent out invitations, one after the other? Which conclave is the “real” conclave? Is it the one that was mailed first? The one that was received first? The one that is scheduled for the earliest date?

            You also haven’t answered one of my other questions: if, by decree of Mikey (or by his interpretation of canon law, as you prefer), laity are valid electors, then why didn’t he make even the slightest effort to contact lay “sedes” from around the world? He invited only clergy. That’s an awful lot of disenfranchised electors (who can’t be dismissed as you dismiss the clergy who didn’t attend, because they had no opportunity to attend – they weren’t invited).

            For that matter, you discount any non-“sede”, but what about any “sedes” who didn’t happen to be listed in the online list that Bawden used? By definition, there is (or at least was, pre-Mike) no centralized “sede” authority, so what about clergy who would have been (in Bawden’s view) valid electors, but who simply weren’t “registered” with whatever source he used to compile his invitation list?

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “You’re still basically insisting that (under the circumstances you believe were in effect) any Catholic, anywhere
            has the right to call for a conclave (simply by virtue of being the
            first contestant to hit the buzzer, so to speak), and the power to compel (with binding moral force) the attendance of every faithful Catholic – merely on his own
            determination that a sufficient emergency exists (and then anyone who
            disagrees is simply declared to have had insufficient faith, and
            dismissed).”

            One false statement.

            If there had NOT been a crisis, there would not have been such a right. That you got right. But if there WAS a crisis, then the right did NOT come merely on his own determination.

            Some logic would be welcome.

            “For that matter, you discount any non-“sede”, but what about any “sedes”
            who didn’t happen to be listed in the online list that Bawden used?”

            1) I am not aware he used an online list, though that is technically possible;
            2) I am certain that if he did, he also wanted the immediate recipients to spread the word to others.

            Actually neither I nor he totally discount non-sedes. He considers that at least back then, non-sede faithful were probably still true Catholics behind iron curtain. And I consider a “non-sede” is in the position of someone supporting the false Avignon Papacy during the time when true Papacy had returned to Rome.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “The Council of Trent condemned as heresy the notion that anyone could
            lay claim to any ecclesiastical office without “ecclesiastical and
            canonical authority,” ”

            Here is where the idea of an emergency CONCLAVE came in. That kind of thing being the normal authority for the ecclesiastical office of papacy.

            “Pope Pius VI decreed that anyone who holds that
            “the power of ecclesiastical ministry and of rule is derived from the
            community of the faithful [i.e. laity]” is to be condemned as a heretic”

            But he did not claim that it was heretical to get elected by a lay conclave.

            The rulings of Pius XII in this case were not infallible, but disciplinary. And as an ex-Seminarian having himself decided to leave FSSPX, I think he considered the requirement of proven aptitude fulfilled.

            Whether FSSPX is or was fit to make such a proof, I am less sure.

            However, as said, one of my theories of him was that conclave was valid, contradicting my earlier (while Palmarian) position that it was invalid due to pure lay particiapation.

            The other one is that it was invalid, he started out as antipope, but got papacy at defection of other more valid claims.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            Here is where the idea of an emergency CONCLAVE came in. That kind of thing being the normal authority for the ecclesiastical office of papacy.

            I’d disagree, but at the very least, this blows the “lay conclave” idea out of the water. No laity have “ecclesiastical authority” and certainly not “canonical authority”. Ecclesiastical authority vests only in validly (and licitly) ordained bishops (including, of course, the Pope, whomever he may be), but not in laity.

            But he did not claim that it was heretical to get elected by a lay conclave.

            I’m not seeing any difference here… What is the difference between “It is heretical to believe that ecclesiastical ministry and rule derive from the laity,” and “It is heretical to believe that laity can invest someone with supreme ecclesiastical ministry and rule”? If anything, the latter seems to be a stronger (and therefore more heretical) version of the former.

            The rulings of Pius XII in this case were not infallible, but disciplinary.

            And? They were still the decree of a valid pope, and therefore only changeable by a future valid pope (and, I assume we can agree that it’s obvious that Bawden could’t first claim the papacy in derogation of Pius VI’s ruling, and then claim that he had the power as pope to change it).

            Also, it was Pius VI (Auctorem Fidei) not Pius XII.

            And as an ex-Seminarian having himself decided to leave FSSPX, I think he considered the requirement of proven aptitude fulfilled.

            First, again, “he considered”. It’s a rule almost as old as the existence of law, that “no man may be judge in his own case.”

            Second, it is not at all unheard of for a seminarian to wash out before ordination. Merely having been in seminary at some point is not proof of fitness for ordination.

            The other one is that it was invalid, he started out as antipope, but got papacy at defection of other more valid claims.

            As I said in a different post, that’s simply impossible. An invalid election confers nothing at all, so when a more valid claimant dies or relinquishes the claim, Bawden would still have no better claim than any other layman (because an invalid conclave is not a conclave at all – it’s just six people in a rumpus room talking nonsense).

            This is because the reason for the invalidity is completely independent of whether or not there is a superior claimant.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “No laity have “ecclesiastical authority” and certainly not “canonical authority”.”

            That principle is somewhat falsely stated.

            Especially when it comes to episcopal elections.

            That conclave was in its majority laymen. For all practical purposes laymen determined who was becoming the next pope.

            You can say a conclave cannot be purely lay, but you cannot say laymen cannot wield elective authority in a conclave.

            During the first centuries, bishops were elected by laymen, priests, deacons of their diocese with or without assistance of bishops from surrounding dioceses.

            It is NOT ontologically impossible for a layman to wield elective authority.

            It is not even impossible for an elected man still a layman to start wielding jurisdictional authority.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            ” To be clear, if your belief is that there was some other non-Vatican
            pope as his immediate predecessor (I’m not really “up on” Michaelist
            beliefs), the same questions apply to whomever you believe was the first
            of “your” line of popes after whenever you believe the Vatican
            succession lost legitimacy.”

            Interesting question.

            Pope Michael, after having previously rejected the Siri claim or story, has softened. If Pius XII was last Pope previous to Pope Michael, the gap is greater, if there was Siri papacy between (who was certainly a bishop before the “white smoke, black smoke, white smoke” affairs) it diminishes the popeless time.

            I have myself considered another possibility, that Pope Michael might have been unwittingly an antipope, while Krav (a man of Zagreb, in civil called Mirko Fabris) was Pope, a claim lasting 1978 – 2012 (to just after consecration of Pope Michael). But of Krav I know next to nothing. I don’t know if “Pope Krav I” was an act by an actor called Mirko Fabris (there is such an actor) or whether the Mirko Fabris elected Pope Krav was genuine and just a namesake of the actor.

            But in the Pope Michael line he is first, and he was the first conclavist ex-sede Pope (Linus II and Pius XIII were after him and some Feeneyites, with Sede Bishops as electors, even later – that line has a third Pope Alexander IX, if you prefer Feeneyism : Pope Michael is as non-Feeneyite as Mgr Lefèbvre).

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “it is equally logical to conclude that Paul VI wasn’t pope because he got it “wrong” on contraception”

            He wasn’t, he did, he allowed NFP.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            OK, fine (I don’t really want to get into the NFP debate right now, and I already knew that you denied the papacy of Pope Paul VI).

            But my point is that your logic opens up the possibility of the opposite reasoning as well – that Paul VI was not Pope because he was wrong in prohibiting contraception at all. (Now, maybe you don’t care, since in your eyes, he wasn’t Pope anyway – but substitute whatever Pope gave your preferred formulation of the Church’s teachings on contraception, and the argument stands.)

            If individual Catholics get to say that a Pope is not a Pope because you think he got something wrong, then there’s no way to restrict that principle to only conservative/traditional objections.

            If you get to call shenanigans on Vatican II (based on your private judgment of what counts as orthodoxy), then how do you respond to someone who wants to call foul on Trent, and decides that the See has been vacant since the 1600s, because Anathema XYZ from that Council conflicts with their perceptions of “true” Catholicism?

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “But my point is that your logic opens up the possibility of the opposite reasoning as well – that Paul VI was not Pope because he was wrong in prohibiting contraception at all.”

            Obviously, the person is using a right principle but abusing it to a wrong end because he is believing a wrong principle, namely contraception to be licit.

            “If individual Catholics get to say that a Pope is not a Pope because you think he got something wrong, then there’s no way to restrict that principle to only conservative/traditional objections.”

            Conservative – whatever that means – granted.

            Traditional – every reason in the world. Without tradition, there is no such thing as a Church delivering a message from Christ.

            “If you get to call shenanigans on Vatican II (based on your private judgment of what counts as orthodoxy), then how do you respond to someone who wants to call foul on Trent, and decides that the See has been vacant since the 1600s, because Anathema XYZ from that Council conflicts with their perceptions of ‘true’ Catholicism?”

            I’d ask about those centuries exactly what you asked me about a few decades: “where do you think the Church of Christ was in the meantime?”

            Btw, I have already tried out the Roumanian Orthodox answer and gone back. Even though Iasi at least does condemn Protestantism and declare Tradition and Seven Sacraments and Mass a true Sacrifice.

            Oh, btw, “private judgement” does not mean “judgement by a private person as in a layman outside the ranks of the magisterium”, it means “judgement by a private principle” (not approved by the magisterium through the ages).

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “What is your problem with NFP?”

            There are three moments to NFP, each involving a couple, which we shall presume married to each other:
            1) having sex on inertile days – probably licit (St Thomas said the reason it was licit was uncertainty of infertility, which might imply non-licitness with better certainty, now it is known he was taking that from couples where the wife was very young and menstruation not yet settled);
            2) not having sex on fertile days – conditionally licit, but if other spouse asks for sex and one refuses it in reference to NFP plan, that is a mortal sin tantamount to adumtery;
            3) planning to reserve sex for non-fertile days and to avoid sex on fertile days, systematically. This intention is mortally sinful, insofar as it makes acts in themselves licit a means for an unlawful end, same end which makes the condom illicit.

            “And besides, since you seem comfortable judging papal infallibility by the standard of “does it accord with the Magisterium of Hans-Georg?”, then what exactly would it take for you to say, ‘I find this statement hard to accept, but I accept it as divinely revealed because the Church says so.’?”

            Sth like finding good evidence it always was the teaching of the Church or that at least it never was condemned by the Church.

            You are dealing with a guy who knows some history of the last 2000 years and has been concentrating some on Church History.

            “It seems to me that you don’t believe in the authority of the Church at all.”

            Yes, I do. But I don’t think your test of my believing it is a good one.

            “When you converted (you say you’re ex-Lutheran), did you declare, as my wife did when she was received into the Church, ‘I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.’?”

            I very much did so. For declarations past of magisterium, I stand where I stood (by past meaning previous to Pius XII), for declarations of present magisterium, I have transferred it from the line Pius XII -John XXIII – Paul VI – John Paul I – John Paul II – Benedict XVI – Francis TO, provisionally, Pope Michael.

            If anything, you could pretend I lack the intention of submitting by the fact I refused Alejandro IX and Boniface X obedience because they are both Feeneyites.

            “It sounds more like your faith is that the “true” holy Catholic Church is defined by whether it believes and professes all that you believe, teach, and proclaim to be revealed by God.”

            How exactly would one test such a thing?

            What exact belief do you require a trad to hate but still accept because the Church says so in order to not accuse him of that?

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “What would stop someone from even going back further and saying (on the
            same “logic”), “We know that properly-constituted Councils are
            infallible, and the Council of Nicea purported to infallibly deny
            Arianism, but Arius was clearly right, so the Council of Nicea is proven
            invalid”?”

            That is what JW are doing anyway, and the REAL answer is they have no continuity past Charles Taze Russell back to their hero Arius – who was not even a bishop.

            Same observation for “Arian Orthodox Church” which is probably even later than CTR.

            The position thus violates a criterium of the true Church given in Matthew 28.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            I fail to see the relevance of this. Again, I’m not arguing that taking the proper tack on this (acknowledging that our faith is judged by the faith of the Church, not the other way around) will stop various sects from claiming otherwise.

            I’m saying that if we accept the Lundahl Principle (that when we feel the Church “got it wrong,” that means we can safely conclude that it is acting on false authority), then we have no principled reason to refute other sects when they do the same.

            Oh, and “criteria” is Greek, not Latin, so the singular is “criterion”.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “I fail to see the relevance of this.”

            You fail logic forever.

            Your not arguing so means your previous question is a bit unconstructive.

            As to your version of Lundahl Principle “that when we feel the Church ‘got it wrong,’ that means we can safely conclude that it is acting on false authority” – this is not what I profess.

            I don’t “feel” that kissing Quraans is against the Catholic Faith, I know it. Accepting “John Paul II” as a Pope and Saint after he did that is equivalent to accepting an Arian Pope. And you know that Liberius was treated – licitly – as a non-Pope while there was even a false rumour about exactly what he had signed under what circumstances in Sirmium.

            “then we have no principled reason to refute other sects when they do the same.”

            Since these don’t accept papacy as legitimate authority of the Church anyway a refutation on THAT principled reason is hardly accessible to them.

            We must have principled reasons from Bible or Tradition – and if we have such we must be able to apply them against kissing Korans (ha!) or taking Teelucks too. (And no, there is no standard spelling for Indian words about Hinduism either).

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “Oh, and “criteria” is Greek, not Latin, so the singular is “criterion”.”

            The Criterion was a literary magazine. KPITHPION is usually in Latin transliterated criterium. While criterion is not incorrect, it is not the sole correct form.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “If you claim the ability to judge the legitimacy of the pope based on
            whether you agree with him, then a) papal infallibility is a dead
            letter, and b) you are in a very real sense no different from a
            Protestant – Luther thought he could judge the validity of Church
            authority by whether it agreed with his own moral intuitions, too.”

            There IS a traditional support FOR NOT kissing Corans or taking Tilaks.

            There IS NOT a traditional support FOR rejecting Holy Mass or even Indulgences.

            I am an ex-Lutheran by the way.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            You’re illegitimately conflating “tradition” with “Tradition.” The former is merely “stuff we’ve done for a long time” and has no doctrinal or dogmatic significance. The latter is the depositum fidei handed down from the Apostles (and says nothing at all about what modes of respect we might show towards other religious cultures, without affirming their religious tenets).

            Who are you to say when a tradition (small “t”) is a standard by which the true faith may be judged?

            Again, let me ask you to provide at least a hypothetical example of a time when you would accept a teaching that you personally have reason to doubt, because the Church defines it to be true. If there is no such situation, then you truly do believe that you are the ultimate judge of the Church’s fidelity to Christ (from which it follows that, if you still claim to be Catholic, you must think you are the Pope, since it is to the heir of Peter that the Church’s faith is entrusted for safekeeping).

            Unless you have some better argument than another misspelled repetition of “Koran kisser” as though it self-evidently ends the debate, then I’m done engaging with your schismatic, sedevacantist nonsense. My breath would be better spent in prayer for your soul than in argument with your delusions.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl

            “delusions”?

            Sounds a bit like Matthew 5:22 …

            “Unless you have some better argument than another misspelled repetition of ‘Koran kisser’ ”

            Misspelled? English has a standard English spelling for an Arabic word? I might even have taken Alcoran, except the allitteration with “kisser” is weakened.

            Kissing a book is a sign of religious veneration. Muslims kiss Alcorans and who blames them for such an act as long as they are in that error?

            A Catholic kisses e g Missals, Gospel Books, Breviaries, Canon Law (and only collections considered as valid, a Sede would hardly kiss the 1983 perversion).

            In other words, by kissing the wrong book (according to the presumed Catholic faith) he is sending the wrong signal. And that is not saintly. And that is a matter which is per se reasonable to be secure of, and not just a matter of “tradition” with “small t” as in “what we have done”.

            “Again, let me ask you to provide at least a hypothetical example of a time when you would accept a teaching that you personally have reason to doubt, because the Church defines it to be true.”

            I did so with Papacy (rather than episcopacy) as main successors of St Peter’s office, despite feeling queezy on how to square this with Wojtyla’s, Ratzinger’s and Bergoglio’s non-continuation of Catholic Tradition (big T). Because of Pius IX and St Pius X’ accepting this as defined by Vatican Council. After having been officially non-papist as in Roumanian Orthodox for some time.