" Everyone sees that all ecclesiastical discipline is overthrown if it is in any way lawful for one to restore arrangements which are no longer valid because the supreme authority of the Church long ago decreed otherwise. In no sense do they excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying." (Pope Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis, condemning the lay investiture of Chinese bishops behind the Iron Curtain)

The attempted restoration of the papacy in 1990 resulting in David Bawden's false claim ended in disaster for a reason: God is clearly telling us that He will bring this interregnum to an end when He chooses, not as and when man chooses. The answer to the present crisis is certainly not a man unfit or even ill suited for the papacy. No less than a Pope St. Gregory the Great, a St. Pius X or a Pope Pius XII is needed for the gargantuan task that must now be accomplished. Or at the very least, if a holy but simple pope could be elected, he would need to be surrounded by devout clergy and advisors, well known and respected for their wise and efficient management of those affairs in which every Pope must be constantly involved. Trying to downplay the importance of these contingencies being in place is a failure to accept reality and a refusal to recognize the solemn dignity and all-encompassing import of papal authority; the truly daunting task of rescuing souls from all manner of error and corruption, the Church's primary mission on earth. The obstacles preventing the restoration of the papacy can be pushed aside only by God Himself. When and if these obstacles are removed and all the above is in place, then will God act, and not before.

Common error
Is Bawden being held to an impossible standard as some maintain? To answer this question, consider the occupants of the papal see over the past two millennia. Out of 258, perhaps as many as 30 of these (whose history we know something about) were men not especially distinguished by any learning or prior experience, clerical accomplishments or even extraordinary holiness. Some were simple laymen when elected. Ambitious politicians or the Roman nobility unduly influenced others and yet others were public sinners or are remembered only for their weaknesses and/or unremarkable careers. This is only one-eighth or 12 1/2 percent of all the popes who ever reigned. If we include those whose histories are uncertain, let's increase this percentage, say, to 20 percent. Nearly all of these men, even those dominated by political and family interests, had access to learned advisors, theologians, researchers and diplomats both among the clergy and the laity. If their elections were invalid in some way; if they were weak in some area, incompetent, or evil, the Church supplied for these defects. But this is only true if such a person was generally accepted as validly elected and a true pope — the canonical definition of common error — which most certainly is not the case with Bawden. Common error does not exist unless it truly IS common. Also, as we have noted elsewhere, the hierarchy and lesser clergy — not the laity alone — must necessarily comprise the Church which supplies, for one must always adhere to the Church's own definition of itself. Otherwise, Canon 209 governing the principal of common error loses its meaning, for the use of the word "Church" in this canon can only mean the Church as She has always defined Herself. If those in Bawden's corner wish to ignore the 80 percent of the pontiffs distinguished for their exemplary holiness, knowledge, experience and accomplishments, focusing only on the 20 percent, they do a grave injustice to ecclesiastical history and right reason. If they wish to pretend that the hierarchy did not supply for those popes who were in some way deficient, or supplies for Bawden when he can never claim to have reigned by common error, they malign Canon Law and theology. This also is demonstrated in the rremarks made by Rev. Journet and medieval theologians concerning the eventual acceptance of the one elected, (see sidebar on A doubtful pope). Bawden insists on being ranked equally with past popes despite his lack of orders. He demands absolute obedience and the respect due his "office." Yet on the other hand he considers himself a special case, deserving special consideration and privileges, when according to the laws and teachings of the Church he deserves none whatsoever.

Prerequisites for genuine apostolicity
The theologian Msgr. G. Van Noort, following the common and constant teaching of the Church, writes: "The original Protestants…took refuge in an appeal to the theory of an 'extraordinary mission.' They maintained that God could at some time raise up a group of men by an extraordinary vocation and confer on them apostolic functions if current apostolic pastors should become viciously corrupt…. It is clear, however, if any such extraordinary mission were ever to be granted by God, it would have to be proven by miracles, or other clearly divine trademarks [and this is the teaching of St. Francis de Sales in his The Catholic Controversy]. The plain truth is, however, that Christ's own promises completely rule out the possibility of any such extraordinary mission… Obviously a man does not become a genuine successor to the apostles merely by arrogating to himself the title of "bishop," or by carrying on in some fashion a function once performed by the apostles. Neither is it enough for a man merely to possess some one, individual power, say for example, the power of orders, [or the power of jurisdiction only]…What is required for GENUINE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION is that a man enjoy THE COMPLETE POWERS (i.e., ordinary powers, not extraordinary) of an apostle, [in this case, the Apostle Peter]. He must, then, in addition to the power of orders, possess also the power of jurisdiction, [and vice versa].

"Jurisdiction means the power to teach and govern. This power is conferred only by a legitimate authorization and, even though once received, can be lost again by being revoked, [or as Cum ex explains, lost by the discovery of pre-election heresy]… The man in question [must be] connected with one of the original apostles by a never-interrupted line of predecessors in the same office. One must also prove that in this total line no one of his predecessors either acquired his position illicitly, or even though he may have acquired it legitimately, ever lost it. For a purely physical succession proves nothing at all." In other words, a woman cannot be "somewhat" pregnant any more than a man without orders can be a "halfway" pope. This is why Pope Pius XII insisted in his 1957 address, Six ans se sont, that the layman elected must be fit for the priesthood, since Orders immediately succeeds acceptance of the papacy, as it must to guarantee that the one elected is a genuine successor of the Apostles. Pope Pius XII was referring to this necessity in Six ans se sont when he said, "It must be remembered that Christ granted His Apostles a two-fold power: first, the priestly power to consecrate, which was given in its fullness to all the Apostles; and second, the power to teach and govern,…passed on to the pope and bishops…Pope, bishops and priests necessarily belong to the clergy." In other words, Christ gave immediately to His Apostles this two-fold power which they then transmitted to their successors. To deny that this is the case is to contradict the de fide teaching of the Church.

"The successors of the Apostles as regards the power of teaching, ruling and sanctifying the faithful are the bishops collectively taken, who have their authority by Divine right. The thesis is historically certain and theologically de fide, being proposed as an object of faith by the ordinary magisterium," (Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey, Dogmatic Brevior). Ergo, to truly be a genuine successor of the Apostles, one must possess this two or threefold power: To sanctify (consecrate) and to teach and govern. To deny that one is any more than a lay pope-elect, (hence not in full possession of the papal power), before the reception of Orders, is to implicitly deny that both orders and jurisdiction must be joined to establish unquestionable apostolic succession, as the Church infallibly teaches. Orders and jurisdiction are two separate entities that must merge into one to create a valid member of the hierarchy. In swinging violently away from his rejection as a seminarian and in deploring the Traditionalist abuse of epikiea, so injurious to jurisdiction, Bawden fell into the opposite error of injuring the Church's de fide teaching on the hierarchy. He minimalized the absolute necessity of and the importance of Orders — even the indispensability of periodic examinations for fitness and the proper training of seminarians — to justify his position. But even had Bawden found a fully acceptable bishop, he could never have been validly or licitly ordained, having committed heresy pre-election and lacking fitness for the priesthood in other areas. Therefore his ordination could never have assured apostolic succession.