" Anyone who would be so daring as to exercise any priestly functions without having been admitted to Holy Orders (or without episcopal authorization) would, in Catholic countries, be punished by the secular government; at any rate, terrible chastisements would fall on him from God. King Ozias presumed, in spite of the warnings of the priests, to burn incense on the altar of incense; he was immediately struck with leprosy and was a leper until the end of his life, (2 Par. 26; "The Catechism Explained," by Spirago and Clarke. See also Numbers 16 concerning the terrible fate of Core and his men, who were consumed by fire and swallowed up by the earth for the same abuse.)

The pictures and quotes above speak volumes and document Bawden's usurpation of priestly powers, as well as the papacy. His heresies concerning the nature of the hierarchy and Apostolic Succession, both instituted by Christ our Lord here are revealed in his words and his actions. Bawden has repeatedly demonstrated his heretical belief that in granting him jurisdiction by Divine right as "pope" (extraordinary mission), Christ also provided him with a species of clerical power not simply limited to one who has received tonsure, but equivalent to one in major Orders. If Bawden teaches this as true for himself, than we also can assume that those Traditionalists claiming to receive jurisdiction by "Divine right" have a basis for their claim as well, (although Bawden vehemently denies this).

What Bawden seems incapable of understanding, far less admitting is that his abuse of the Sacraments and sacramentals has barred him from acceptance into the clerical state. This pertinacious refusal to believe and firmly accept what the Church teaches concerning vocation has led to all his other heresies. He may believe he is a cleric de facto, but in order to become a priest, a true bishop would have to establish that he could be made a cleric de jure, according to the law, before conferring minor orders. Bouscaren-Ellis write under Can. 968: "The candidate cannot be ordained licitly unless he has the necessary qualities required by the sacred Canons and is free from all irregularity and other impediments…One who possesses these qualities, has a right intention and is admitted to Orders by his Bishop may be said to have a vocation to the priesthood," (itals. by Bouscaren-Ellis). But Bawden is not yet in Orders. So having incurred this irregularity prior to tonsure de jure and the minor orders, it is assumed that he does not have a vocation.

As St. Francis de Sales teaches in his "The Catholic Controversy," extraordinary mission must be proven by miracles, just as Christ proved the validity of His mission. St. Francis tells us that the Reformers maintained that "they were sent extraordinarily by God because the ordinary mission had been abolished and ruined, with the true Church, itself, under the tyranny of Antichrist," something not too far removed form what Bawden and Traditionalist clergy maintain. But "no one should allege an extraordinary mission unless he prove it by miracles…If then they allege extraordinary mission, let them show us some extraordinary works; otherwise we are not obliged to believe them…To try to make in the Church this division of ordinary and extraordinary is to ruin it…How then did they abolish the ordinary Church to make an extraordinary one, since it is He who has built the ordinary one, and cemented it with His blood?" How indeed, without holding Bawden as Christ and dethroning Our Lord and Savior. Where are Bawden's miracles, his signs and wonders? We are to disbelieve Christ Our Lord and His holy Doctor, St. Francis de Sales to believe David Bawden?!

But there is more. The following is a summary of the Church's laws and teachings on the abuse of the Sacraments and the permanent irregularities incurred by such abuse.

1.) In performing the solemn rite of marriage and Baptism, Bawden violated Can. 1098§2. These Canons state that where no priest possessing valid jurisdiction is available, the couple is to contract marriage privately, even if another priest without jurisdiction is available to assist at the ceremony. Directions on how to proceed in the event that a true hardship exists and no priest is available for at least a month were provided by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on June 23, 1830. These instructions are reproduced by Canon De Smet in his work, "Marriage and Betrothment," (1913). Bawden did not proceed according to this instruction.

2.) Also according to this same Instruction, Bawden could easily have witnessed the exchange of vows and "I dos," even in the capacity of a civil official, without resorting to the solemn ceremony, (Can. 1063§3; Rev. Ignatius Szal's "Communication of Catholics With Schismatics.") In all the ceremonies he has performed, Bawden has been recognized formally as a pastor and agent of his own church, thus fulfilling the civil law.

3.) Although Catholic witnesses were readily available, non-Catholics signed as witnesses to the ceremony. An instruction of the Holy Office issued Aug. 19, 1891 cited by Revs. Woywod-Smith under Canon 1098§2, no. 1123 states that non-Catholic witnesses are to be used only if Catholic witnesses are unavailable.

4.) All laymen know the formula to be used for simple Baptism given in a case of emergency or necessity, and all could clearly see that this far exceeded the rite recommended for administration by laymen. All knew Bawden was a layman, but trusted that he knew what he was doing in celebrating the solemn form because he claimed to have researched into those things permitted to a lay "pope."

5.) Bawden has incurred irregularities under Can. 985 for his heretical and sacrilegious acts. Revs. Woywod-Smith, under Can. 983, define these irregularities as "canonical impediments which permanently bar a man from entering the clerical state," providing that these irregularities are a) a grievous sin, b) committed after Baptism and c) are manifested externally.

6.) Bawden is guilty of two delicts under the crimes listed as irregularities and also is guilty of having incurred a simple impediment. Canon 985§1, lists as irregular those guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism. (If up to this time anyone entertained doubts concerning whether Bawden's teachings about Apostolic Succession and the hierarchy were truly heretical, those doubts should now be laid to rest.) Under Can. 985§7 we read: "Men not ordained to major orders who perform an act of Orders reserved to clerics in major orders…" incur irregularity. Even a minor cleric performing a rite related to major orders becomes irregular and cannot be promoted.
Bouscaren and Ellis relate the decision of a case by the Holy Office in 1906. In that case it was determined that even when a cleric in minor orders, who (with reasonable cause) is acting as a subdeacon at a solemn Mass, he is forbidden to do the following: he may not wear the maniple; he may not wipe the chalice at the Offertory or pour water into it, touch the chalice at any time during the Canon or remove or replace the pall; and he is not to purify the chalice. If he does ALL these things he is irregular, and these things are not even pertinent to the valid confection of a Sacrament itself.

7.) Bawden also has incurred the "infamy of fact" mentioned in Can. 784§5, a simple impediment. "Loss of good reputation among good and serious-minded Catholics by reason of a crime committed or general bad character." This impediment can be dispensed with, but the irregularities in no. 6 above cannot be dispensed with unless they are occult, (secret). Woywod-Smith state that a crime becomes public when 10 people in a large city know about it, because then it can easily become known. Far more than 10 people now know about these crimes.

8.) Referring to Can. 985§7, Woywod-Smith write: "According to the former law, clerics and laymen who knowingly and rashly exercised IN A SOLEMN AND OFFICIAL MANNER the functions of (even a minor order) which they had not received were punished with irregularity," so there can be no appeal made to the old law. Bawden certainly celebrated these Sacraments seriously, solemnly and in an official manner. And he did so even though the form allowed to the laity for either of these Sacraments would have served just as well !!! The canonists continue: "The present [1917] Code considers irregular…clerics in minor orders or laymen who exercise an act of Orders reserved to clerics in major orders…The function exercised must be one exclusively reserved to major orders and must be one exercised with the distinctive insignia of the major order." Subdeacon, deacon and priest are considered major orders.

Photo by Michelle Welch

Here we see Bawden vested in the cope and wearing the stole, the ends of which are visible just right from the folded hands of the groom. In his "Externals of the Catholic Religion," Rev. John F. Sullivan tells us that the stole signifies "the authority of [the Church's] ministers." Rev. Attwater, in his "Catholic Dictionary," describes the cope as "A vestment…worn by the officiant at practically all solemn functions except Mass."

Bawden, vested in stole and surplice and reading from the Rituale, "blesses" a new mother following childbirth. We read from the Rituale Romanum regarding sacramentals: "In the ordination service, the bishop anoints and blesses the hands of the newly-made priest, accompanying the action with these words: 'May it please Thee O Lord to consecrate and sanctify these hands by this our anointing and blessing; that whatever they bless may be blessed, and whatever they consecrate may be consecrated, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.' …Many of the sacramentals definitely come directly from Christ…how many and actually which ones we are not sure…[But] as Christ has endowed with infallible grace the outward signs by which Sacraments are effected, so in a similar way He has endowed with spiritual powers the outward signs by which sacramentals are constituted."

9.) Canon 988 states: "Ignorance of irregularities which arise either from crime or from defect, and ignorance of impediments, does not prevent one from incurring them." We know Bawden is not ignorant of these irregularities since he has accused Traditionalists of incurring them on numerous occasions. (See also Heresy and Culpability, sidebar.) Woywod-Smith also write: "The Church makes freedom of the irregularities and impediments part of the necessary qualifications for ordination, and whenever a man lacks any of these, (either through his own fault, by accident or through the malice of others), he cannot be ordained."

10.) The following syllogisms will help the reader easily confirm Bawden's heresies:

Syllogism #1:

(i) Christ conferred the two-fold power of Orders and jurisdiction on his apostles and invested St. Peter with the fullness of these powers as their head, to rule the Church through his successors "until the consummation."
(ii) But one who ruled for several years, but was never ordained, consecrated, nor crowned Pope, cannot be said to possess the fullness of these powers.
(iii) Therefore such a one could not be the Apostolic successor of St. Peter or any of the other Apostles where Orders are concerned; for Christ, who can never deceive nor be deceived, established not a single, but a two-fold power.

Syllogism #2:

(i) The history of the Catholic Church is included by Rev. Kinkead in his Baltimore Catechism #3 as one of the sources of revealed Tradition; the list of St. Peter's true successors, counted by the Church as dogmatic facts, is part of this history.
(ii) With only a very few exceptions, (and the exact nature of these exceptions is not revealed to us by history), all the Roman Pontiffs elected were either ordained and/or consecrated prior to their election or ordained and/or consecrated within a few months after their elections. Even in the few accidental exceptions mentioned, the Church had the manifest intention of ordaining and consecrating these men before their untimely deaths.
(iii) Therefore to deny that for true Apostolic Succession one need not be a priest or bishop is to deny articles of Divine revelation and revealed Tradition, proposed by the Church as de fide.

Syllogism #3:

(i) To be a true successor of the Apostles, one must be licitly and validly ordained; therefore a layman who is canonically unable to be ordained could not be considered a candidate for the papacy.
(ii) Certain irregularities permanently disqualify one from entering major orders, necessary for Apostolicity.
(iii) Therefore a layman elected "Pope" who is later determined unable to be ordained because of these irregularities never became Pope and never possessed Apostolic Succession.

" If a baptized male should invalidly be elected Pope, the Church could [not should — Ed.] supply jurisdiction so that all his jurisdictional acts …that do not presuppose the power of Orders would be valid," (Rev. Raymond Kearney, 1929, "Supplied Jurisdiction,"). All others writing on the case of a layman elected Pope also agree that a lay pope without Orders cannot exercise those powers that he does not possess, (Revs. Miaskiewicz, Cox, Brosnan). The Church most certainly cannot supply for those things that are contrary to the will of Christ and the infallible teachings of His Church concerning Apostolic Succession. Orders must accompany jurisdiction, and if they cannot then God has obviously willed that for the time being, at least, He does not wish that a Pope be elected. If certainty cannot be had concerning the identity of the true Pope, the See remains vacant, ("Handbook of the Christian Religion," Rev. Wilmers, S.J.).

These syllogisms are necessary, according to the system of scholasticism, to establish one's case. St. Thomas Aquinas comments, however, that: "If our opponent believes nothing of Divine revelation, there is no longer any way of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections — if he has any — against faith. Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth cannot be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered," (Summa Theol., Pt. 1, Q. 1, Art. 8). Bawden is insisting that Divine revelation be demonstrated when revelation must simply be believed and accepted with a firm assent. If anyone needs a demonstration of the fact that Christ founded His Church upon the Apostles, granting them a two-fold power of Orders and jurisdiction necessary to the Apostolicity of the Church itself, that person is not Catholic. The teachings of the Church are complicatedly simple, not simply complicated.

Whenever another is accused of heresy, the burden to prove that the heresy does not exist rests on the accused. "The imputability of an offense depends on the evil will (dolus) of the delinquent, or the extent to which his ignorance of the violated law or his omission of the proper due diligence was culpable," (Can. 2199). "The evil will means a deliberate will to violate the law and presupposes on the part of the mind a knowledge of the law and on the part of the will, freedom of action. Given the external violation of a law, the evil will is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved." External violation has been amply proven here. And the evil will can exist even though the perpetrator is firmly convinced he is able to act as a result of neglecting due diligence. Where is Bawden's proof that this evil will did not exist? How is he going to explain repeated incidences of abuse of the Sacraments and sacramentals (see True and false jurisdiction, sidebar) over a 17-year period, or in light of these, justify his heretical statements on the Internet? The very proposition condemned by the Council of Trent (Sess. 23, July 15, 1563; DZ 967) contains both the condemnation of modern lay investiture, or extraordinary mission, AND the condemnation of abuse of the Sacraments. This unquestionably shows a link between the two; a trend of thought amongst the Protestant Reformers that is being repeated in the words and behavior of David Bawden. The secular rules of evidence state that once is an event, twice is an incident and three times establishes a pattern, providing evidence of guilt. Bawden presumed himself a cleric, he arrogated the use of the sacramentals to himself and he has likewise abused the solemn form of the Sacraments reserved to priests alone. He has abused the Sacraments not just on three occasions, but on many occasions.

For over two decades Bawden has presented himself as a knowledgeable canonist and rubrician. At the same time, he has made it abundantly clear that he has no use for those priests who arrogate jurisdiction to themselves; and yet they at least have the appearance of a colored title, while he has no power or authority at all. Bawden has been corrected privately for his irreverence during sacred functions and publicly for his violation of the sacramentals. He has been asked on several different occasions to produce the canonical reasoning supporting those actions involving the Sacraments and sacramentals, but has demanded obedience and has insisted on freedom of action. He has been rebuked for his irreverence in handling the Most Holy Eucharist; admonished when he suggested omitting the scrutiny (examination by faithful and others) from the rite of Ordination; upbraided for pretending to possess mystic tonsure, a sacramental validly confected only by the proper bishop; and finally exposed as an imposter for daring to pretend to celebrate the solemn rites of Baptism and Matrimony, when he has never received Holy Orders.If those who still insist on following Bawden want "Sacraments" from the laity, they can return to the Novus Ordo church. Wasn't the appointment of lay deacons -- and nuns acting as Eucharistic ministers -- part of what prompted them to leave in the first place?

Bawden's history of contempt for holy things, duly proven on this site, is as frightening as it is appalling. How any of his followers, seeing all this, could continue to consider him a holy man of God is truly an impenetrable mystery. God's will is found in His laws; if we are holy and truly love him, we keep ALL His laws and commandments. In the interests of truth and justice, Bawden's supporters should be filled with righteous anger against him on God's behalf and on their own. Just as Christ drove out the money lenders from the Temple, so too they should drive Bawden from his imposture for defiling holy things, arrogating to himself powers only God and his true ministers can rightly and validly convey, and involving themselves, their children and their grandchildren in sins of idolatry, sacrilege and unbelief. Instead they continue to host their pity party for "poor, persecuted David," while sliding ever closer to the edge of the fearful abyss.

" Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do!"