Author Topic: Pope MichaelConclavism (AMA?) (Read 8365 times)

conclavist · « **on:** February 13, 2015, 02:37:28 AM »

Hello!

Over the past year I have accepted Michael as pope as he seems to be the first valid conclave that happened, and the sede vacantists seem divided and actually opposed to holding an election rather than simply that they didn't have one yet.

I read another thread on here before about some other guy who came under PM and the arguments did not seem substantial ("he's just crazy!", etc.). I can answer various objections and provide some perspective on things as I've contacted or read about every "traditionalist" group I can think of.

I know this board's official position is that of "the Resistance". I emailed the stmarcelinitiative.com admin but he didn't respond. I think the SSPX and "The Resistance" are correct in identifying the need for a pope and opposing sedevacantism, in a sense, but why not hold an election or support a conclave? There were talks within the SSPX about holding an election, and Bp. Thuc consecrated bishops specifically for the purpose of holding an election (but neither materialized!).

I think conclavism will grow, so even if you're anti-conclavist, you should probably think about it.

When I started with the sedes, I merely thought they didn't have time to hold an election yet.

The plot thickened, because I believe many sedevacantists are acutally sedeprivationists (they believe that Francis and the V2 "popes" are "material, but not formal popes"). If Francis were to renounce Vatican 2 heresies tomorrow, sedeprivationists would submit to Francis as pope. I believe this is contrary to cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, argument of both sedev's and conclavists, that "such elections [of heretics] shall be null and void", not that they will produce "material popes".

Conclavists believe that 1) the cardinals around Vatican 2 should have formed to fill the sedevacantist vacancy by holding an election around that time (besides the ones that "elected" Roncalli and Montini). Now google what would happen if all the cardinals died - we find that 2) a general imperfect council of bishops, as noted above with Thuch/SSPX, is the next line of defense. This too failed. Google extraordinary papal election. Cardinal Billot states that 3) the Church Universal (clergy and laymen) should hold an election when the electors are unknown or doubtful. Hence, this is what pope Michael's election was, as he contacted all eligible sede vacantist chapels at that time and made a reasonable effort to invite Catholics to the conclave.

Many commentators I've seen online ask the same question I've asked, "if sedes believe they're the Church, why don't they just hold an election?" Thus, I believe the sedes simply made unjustified excuses for why they shouldn't or couldn't hold an election, as noted above, and they adhere to other false theories like sedeprivationism that prevents the election of a pope. I have been working to understand everything in the "Traditionalist Movement" and want to put this to an end, and I think that conclavism is the solution. There are also other side-problems which need to be cleaned up, like the heresy of feeneyism, etc. Other conclaves have happened which should also be "cleaned up".

Basically with Vatican 2, I believe it was a crisis of 1) the specific heresies introduced in the docuмents and 2) the prevention of the election of a pope. Most trads seem to have some understanding of #1, but not how it relates to #2 and necessitates a papal election, in my understanding.

The longest pre-V2 vacancy was 2.5 years, putting the vacancy up to PM's election at 32 years and the vacancy at 56+ years for the sedes.

The SSPX seems to be in an unCatholic position of "partial communion", which is a Vatican 2 novelty and in my opinion just where the Vatican 2 leaders want them, to create more confusion.

I would appreciate any feedback, comments, and questions, but ask that you be charitable. I'm working in good faith to clean up this mess.

Also: I found it most interesting to see the post "Ecclesia-vacantism is manifestly heretical, Direct denial of the Apostolicity" which I will respond to. This is related to why I think an election needed to happen. There is a heretical form of sede vacantism which says that "Peter shall have no more perpetual successors" which directly contradicts Vatican Council. The only consistent sede belief is that there is currently an interregnum and the world could end during an interregnum.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Ecclesia-vacantism-is-manifestly-heretical

Info:
Pope Michael site: vaticaninexile.com
See his Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/user/PopeMichaelI/videos
P.S. Please see Lucio Mascarenhas' apologetics for PM vs. other "trad" groups and issues, including other conclaves like the "Pius XIII" one which happened in 1998. Again, even if you're not conclavist, he opposes other positions like sedeprivationism which are worth reading. http://www.geocities.ws/prakashjm45/michaelinum.html)
News: Someone I don't know has launched a PM fundraising GoFundMe for a project I did know about, a new HQ: http://www.gofundme.com/m4lwjk

Luker · « **Reply #1 on:** February 13, 2015, 08:17:54 AM »

I could see this thread going in many entertaining directions...

It's too bad none of the pope in hiding folks last long on the forum, otherwise we could have a real fun knock em down, drag em out brawl here on this thread.

:argue:

:heretic:

Croixalist · « **Reply #2 on:** February 13, 2015, 08:27:13 AM »

I reject YouTube Pope of no substance. Now, he could consecrate Russia in the bathtub with his rubber ducky bishops... let me know how that turns out!

Quasimodo · « **Reply #3 on:** February 13, 2015, 08:48:55 AM »

Quote from: conclavist

I think conclavism will grow, so even if you're anti-conclavist, you should probably think about it.

If you could get a family of 6 to join you could double your church.

If he really is pope why does he neglect his diocese?

conclavist · « **Reply #4 on:** February 13, 2015, 11:19:43 AM »

Whatever his actions with his diocese, good or ill, has no bearing on the validity of his conclave. People go to far lengths to defend the conciliar "popes'" actions which are often heretical and show that they could not have been true popes.

Please continue with the objections! And a gentle reminder to be charitable.

BTNYC · « **Reply #5 on:** February 13, 2015, 11:28:46 AM »

Looks like 62myer has found a new coffee shop with free WiFi.

conclavist · « **Reply #6 on:** February 13, 2015, 11:41:37 AM »

I'm not 62myer, but I did get the scoop on that guy and read his previous threads on here.

JezusDeKoning · « **Reply #7 on:** February 13, 2015, 11:55:10 AM »

Quote from: conclavist

I'm not 62myer, but I did get the scoop on that guy and read his previous threads on here.

Sure... and I'm the next King of France.

Nishant · « **Reply #8 on:** February 13, 2015, 11:59:59 AM »

Conclavist, I don't know if you're sincere or not, but the Catholic teaching is this - the right to elect the Roman Pontiff resides formally in the Church of Rome, and in the default of the Cardinals, the power to elect the new Pope belongs to the Roman clergy i.e. to the clerics who have been incardinated into the diocese of Rome by a previous Pope, in whose number the Cardinals usually belong. This is taught by St. Robert in De clericis, bk. I, ch. 10. This is one reason why no Catholic ever should or can accept a Pope who is not elected or accepted by the Cardinals or Roman clergy. If you're just trolling with this post, then my bad for responding. If someone has genuinely misled you on this point, then do understand what Church teaching is. Conclavism never ends well.

conclavist · « **Reply #9 on:** February 13, 2015, 12:29:05 PM »

I am sincere.

As stated in the OP, the 1) cardinals defected and so the next line of defense would be a 2) general imperfect council of bishops. They had 30 years to do this and failed to do so. Hence Cardinal Billot states that 3) the Church Universal has the power to elect (clergy and laymen). Now, the clergy, generally as a class, failing to do their duty for so long, were disqualified from electing except as laymen. Therefore the Church Universal held an election and pope Michael was elected.

Cardinals didn't even exist for a millennium and before that the pope was selected by the clergy and laymen (Church Universal). One must keep in mind that we live in extraordinary times which call for an extraordinary election.

BTNYC · « **Reply #10 on:** February 13, 2015, 01:36:58 PM »

Quote from: conclavist

Therefore the Church Universal held an election and pope Michael was elected.

Here's a picture of 50% of the "Church Universal":

JezusDeKoning · « **Reply #11 on:** February 13, 2015, 01:57:47 PM »

Quote from: conclavist

I am sincere.

As stated in the OP, the 1) cardinals defected and so the next line of defense would be a 2) general imperfect council of bishops. They had 30 years to do this and failed to do so. Hence Cardinal Billot states that 3) the Church Universal has the power to elect (clergy and laymen). Now, the clergy, generally as a class, failing to do their duty for so long, were disqualified from electing except as laymen. Therefore the Church Universal held an election and pope Michael was elected.

Cardinals didn't even exist for a millennium and before that the pope was selected by the clergy and laymen (Church Universal). One must keep in mind that we live in extraordinary times which call for an extraordinary election.

His Midwesternness - I mean, David Bawden, was "ordained" by a schismatic bishop (who derives his lineage from a Catholic bishop in Brazil in the time of Pius XI who went on to start his own church and "ordain" clergy) and has no credentials.

Had he completed his time at the SSPX seminary in Switzerland and been truly ordained, it's possible he would make a very capable traditional priest. He seems to know, aside from his belief in a defective clergy somehow requiring his "election" as Pope, a modicuм of the Traditional Catholic faith. Since he went down the path of schism, he is nothing more than a fraud. Go away, 62myer. You've improved in spelling and the fundamentals of English grammar, I'll grant you that. But, as long as you embrace the fraud in Kansas, you should be banned.

Nishant · « **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2015, 11:15:04 PM »

As mentioned, the right to elect the Pontiff belongs to the Roman clergy by divine right. They can choose to consult or depend on others, but this right properly speaking belongs to them. St. Robert teaches this expressly, he also teaches the Roman clergy will never cease to exist. See here

Quote from: Catholic Encyclopedia

The electoral college of cardinals exercise their office because they are the chief of the Roman clergy. Should the college of cardinals ever become extinct, the duty of choosing a supreme pastor would fall, not on the bishops assembled in council, but upon the remaining Roman clergy.

To have some right or power, you have to have received it from a legitimate authority, and not usurped it illegitimately. What distinguishes the conclavist election you support from the many other conclavist elections? Cardinals or Roman clergy receive their power when they are incardinated into the diocese of Rome by a prior Pope. The Roman Church can can never defect completely. Her clerics alone have the right and power to elect the Roman Pontiff.

conclavist · « **Reply #13 on:** February 13, 2015, 11:38:45 PM »

I'm not 62myer, which hopefully will become evident as I post different points that 62myer would not make. Additionally, it is presumptuous to think that no one else has or would come under PM.

Thank you for bringing up the objection about validity of consecrations. The Duarte-Costa lineage of bishops is valid (though it may not be pretty, admittedly), and the bishop who ordained and consecrated PM was reconciled with the Church prior to consecration. I'm not sure what you're getting at with "credentials", as he was a valid bishop as far as I know and the only "credentials" required for being elected is that of papability (being a male Catholic over the age of reason).

Many of the "trad" consecrations, like the Thuc line, weren't filmed anyway. Let's say PM did film his ordinations and consecration. Then people would attack the bishop's consecration validity, which I don't believe there's any such film record of. Having a consecration on film does not determine validity.

It's also good to bring up the point about PM's experience with the SSPX.The SSPX was technically non-Catholic at the time PM was in it from his sedevacantist position at that time which was a pre-requisite necessary for election, so he would have needed to leave anyway.

See: "Why I no longer support the SSPX" http://popemichael.vaticaninexile.com/?p=808
and
"The Scandal of December 15, 1978" http://popemichael.vaticaninexile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Scandal-of-December-15-1978.pdf

Those in the SSPX were destroying and playing games with people's vocations. PM got caught up in this, which is not unknown in history. St. Rita of Cascia was denied becoming a nun 3 times by her superior. Others have been turned away from the priesthood only to be accepted in the future. PM in a sense was dismissed from the SSPX but also quit it. He could have tried to re-apply or appeal to the pope if he was denied entry, and was promised re-entry by the Abp. and then denied by others. Scandals were experienced within the seminary. Suffice it to say that the SSPX was judged non-Catholic, technically, by adhering to a false bishop of Rome when it should have been sedevacantist at that time and organizing an election, and this is why PM couldn't have gone back anyway, no matter how much he would have liked to.

So, other objections must be raised, because these have been dealt with. Accusations that he has "gone down the path of schism" are only contingent upon proving the invalidity of his election, which I have not seen done (but I am open to listening to, if anyone has good objections which haven't been addressed).

If you think that I really want PM to be pope, I don't, but I haven't seen any reason why he's not pope. It would be much easier if Francis was pope, somehow. I would actually love if someone could show that this was the case because it would make my life easier. However, I think that that is impossible, and then that the sedes have no right to be perpetually headless. Hence, we need an "election at all costs", and even if PM's election was shown to be invalid, then the other conclaves likewise need to be shown to be invalid. So, the sedes, in order to remain sede, need to make these explanations.

Thank you! Your objections are really helpful, because either there's a good one that shows that PM isn't pope, or we can address them and solve the problem of V2 once and for all, the latter of which is my contention at present.

poche · « **Reply #14 on:** February 14, 2015, 12:57:03 AM »

What gave the "electors" the authority to hold a "conclave" and elect anyone pope?