... from home page

+ Easter 2008 +

CASE CLOSED: Antipope Bawden continues to promote heresy, apostasy and schism

© Copyright 2008 by T. Stanfill Benns (None of what appears below — in whole or in part — may be used without the express and written permission of the author.)

In his futile attempts to contradict the syllogisms presented in A Picture's Worth 1,000 Words (below), David Bawden proves what he truly is — an unrepentant and incorrigible heretic. Bawden clearly has denied the teaching of the Vatican Council and other infallible teachings concerning Divine Revelation, and has moreover published this teaching to his website for public consumption — AGAIN. He is openly and willfully teaching the "faithful" lies opposed to the truths of Divine faith. He states on his website:

"Jesus conferred jurisdiction before conferring Orders, since the commission of Saint Peter came before Holy Thursday."

click here

The Vatican Council teaches: "The primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church of God was promised and was conferred immediately and directly upon the blessed Apostle Peter by Christ Our Lord…Upon Simon Peter alone Jesus after His Resurrection conferred the jurisdiction of the highest pastor and rector over his entire fold, saying: 'Feed My lambs, feed My sheep,' (John 21:15 ff)…This teaching of Sacred Scripture [is] manifest as it has been always understood by the Catholic Church…" (all emph. mine. See DZ 1822, following the notation: [Against Heretics and Schismatics].)

The Vatican Council also teaches: "That must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures; and for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture itself contrary to this sense…Further, by Divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in Her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed, (DZ 1788 and DZ 1792; emph. mine).

Unam Sanctam teaches: "Therefore, of the one and only Church (there is) one body, one head, not two heads as a monster, namely, Christ and Peter, the vicar of Christ and the successor of Peter, the Lord Himself saying to Peter: 'Feed My sheep,' (John 21:17)," (DZ 468; emph. mine).

St. Thomas Aquinas' definition of heresy is that it is a statement that must directly (or indirectly) contradict a revealed truth of faith proposed by the Church for belief. This is clearly a teaching revealed in Holy Scripture. Bawden directly contradicts it, condemning my (true) statement as false. It is clearly proposed by the Vatican Council for belief. Our Lord only promised the primacy to St. Peter when He spoke of the power to bind and loose. Christ's actual words demonstrate this: "I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and I shall give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven…thou shalt bind…thou shalt loose…" According to Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, will and shall, when used in the first person, (I), both denote "futurity." In other words, it is used in future tense, meaning the actual event is in the future. Until shortly before his Ascension, Christ was still the visible head of His Church, which cannot have two heads like a monster, as Pope Boniface VIII noted above. This is confirmed by Rev. W. Wilmers, S. J.,  (among many others), who himself was present as an advisor at the Vatican Council.

According to Rev. Wilmers, citing Matt. 16: 16-19, (Christ delivering the promise of the power to bind and loose to Simon Peter): "Peter was promised the power of the keys, which implies supreme power in the Church…Upon him, therefore the Church was to be built. Christ on earth was doubtless the visible head of the little community which clustered around Him…After His departure from this earth, [He] remained the invisible head and pastor of the faithful, (1 Peter 2:35), while He was to be visibly represented by the authority established in His Church…It is one thing to nominate or elect one as the successor of the prince of the Apostles and another thing to confer power on him. Therefore it was defined by the Council of Florence that the full power to feed, rule, and govern the whole Church was given to the pope directly by Our Lord Jesus Christ…The pope in the person of St. Peter certainly received the power to feed the lambs and sheep of Christ; consequently the pastoral jurisdiction over the entire Church," (Handbook of the Christian Religion; all emph. mine).

It is abundantly clear that David Bawden never possessed the knowledge of the faith necessary to be elected Pope. Jesus Christ never conferred upon Bawden any Divine right or power whatsoever; for no true successor of St. Peter endowed with the charism of infallibility could ever publicly and manifestly commit heresy by contradicting Holy Scripture as defined by the Church. Bawden has clearly believed and taught heresy both before and since his election, something the Vatican Council says can never occur lest the gates of hell prevail against the Church. "For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the Apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. Indeed, all the venerable Fathers have embraced their Apostolic doctrine, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it, knowing full well that the See of St. Peter remains unimpaired by any error, according to the Divine promise of our Lord, the Savior, made to the chief of His disciples: 'I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not: and thou being once confirmed, confirm thy brethren,' " (Luke 22: 32).

We must remember that one thing and one thing only matters here: whether David Bawden was a Catholic upon his "election" or not. His post-election heresies tells us that he was not, for the Vatican Council infallibly declares that the Pope can never publicly teach error as truth: Pope Paul IV also teaches in his Cum ex Apostolatus Officio that one appearing to commit heresy as "pope" proves he was a heretic pre-election. To say that such a usurper can do so and still be Pope is a heresy in itself. While all other arguments presented on this site were necessary either to correct Bawden's errors or clarify the heresy issue, they all are side issues not even necessary to the integrity of the argument concerning his heresies. These arguments documenting his heresies are clear and need no further demonstration.

Before Bawden ever made up his mind on the subject of extraordinary tonsure via Divine right, (and according to him this was long after his "election"), he was first bound to obtain certitude concerning the validity of the FACTS where his own conscience is concerned. He ambiguously inferred in Will the Catholic Church Survive…? and later openly stated elsewhere that it was his opinion that election would provide clerical tonsure, so no certitude existed. One is never allowed to act, to hold or teach as true something that one is not certainly convinced is true, and has not sufficiently proven as true. Prudence in such matters strictly dictates that the matter be researched thoroughly according to its gravity. In his The Principles of Scholastic Theology, Rev. Bernard Wuellner, S. J. states that it is a scholastic principle that one cannot act until every difficulty is resolved.  He lists as a reflex principle that "in doubt about the occurrence of a fact, the fact is not to be presumed but must be proved…Without a sufficient reason, (that is without sufficient evidence), nothing should be affirmed or denied, or held as true or certain." Bawden needed to establish certitude on the mystical tonsure issue prior to his "election." It will be seen below why his failure to do so resulted in the direct denial of the manner and order employed by Our Lord in the establishment of His Church.

Rev. Mercier tells us in his Manual of Scholastic Philosophy: "Logic is the reflex study of the order which needs to exist in our judgments, inferences and more elaborate reasoning processes for them to lead us to truth…All forms of reasoning are some phase or form of the syllogism." We are not talking here of the syllogism only; but of truth and its proper demonstration. Reality is determined entirely by the scholastic system of philosophy as applied to theology. Pope Pius XII says in his infallible encyclical Humani Generis: "This philosophy acknowledged and accepted by the Church, safeguards the genuine validity of human knowledge…the mind's ability to attain certain and unchangeable truth…Whatever new truth the human mind is able to find cannot be opposed to truth already acquired, since God, the Highest Truth, has created and guides the human intellect, not that it may daily oppose new truths to rightly established ones, but rather that, having eliminated errors which may have crept in, it may build truth upon truth in the same order and structure that exist in reality, the source of truth."

Bawden needed to use these scholastic principles from the outset to demonstrate himself capable of thinking in synchronization with the Church and Her chosen system of philosophy. Scholasticism corrects us when we stray from this correct manner of thinking, and judges our conclusions true or false. With this in mind, let us proceed to Bawden's "syllogism."

1. Only clerics can obtain ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Canon 118: Only clerics can obtain the power of either orders or ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and ecclesiastical benefices and pensions.
2. The Pope obtains jurisdiction the moment he accepts election. Canon 219: The Roman Pontiff legitimately elected obtains, from the moment he accepts election, the full power of supreme jurisdiction by divine right.
3. Therefore the Pope becomes a cleric by the acceptance of Papal Election so that he can receive the jurisdiction from Almighty God.

The major is true as it stands, since it is only a restatement of Can. 118. However Bawden does not define the meaning of cleric, as scholastic method requires him to do, in either the major or the conclusion. Rev. Pascal Parente tells us in his Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology that the literal meaning of clericus is "called to the lot of the Lord, so to speak." So this properly accepted calling itself establishes the clerical status, as we have insisted all along. Parente tells us that the cleric is obliged to wear "visible tonsure," as a sign that he is truly a cleric. He defines tonsure as "to cut, to shave or to clip" the hair. Bawden has never shaved his head nor any part of it, before or after "election." His practice is to wear his hair at average length at all times. Bawden cannot wear this tonsure because he would need to admit that either his barber or he himself initially administered it, when it is a ceremony that can only be performed by the proper bishop. And God never acts outside the laws He Himself established or commissioned His Church to establish. Peter Cardinal Gasparri warns parents who compel their sons to become priests that they are: "usurping God's rights, since He has reserved to Himself the right of choosing His ministers through the Bishops," (The Catholic Catechism).

In the minor or second premise, Bawden does not repeat the qualifier attached to jurisdiction in the first premise, (ecclesiastical). It is a rule of scholastic argument that one is to always properly qualify the terms of the syllogism. Failure to do this results in the syllogistic fallacy called amphibology. (Bawden resorted to this same tactic when presenting his "opinion" on mystical tonsure in the book, Will the Catholic Church Survive…?) Neither is jurisdiction qualified in the conclusion, a conclusion which is heretical and leads only to absurd consequences, (fallacy of non sequiter). In Bawden's case it is false because he was a heretic pre-election and was automatically disqualified as a candidate. His heretical syllogism also leads to absurd consequences because the law legislates for what usually happens, (St. Thomas Aquinas). In 257 out of 260 cases of papal election, the divine call to the clerical state was already confirmed and actual tonsure already conferred. When the current law demands that the layman elected be immediately ordained and consecrated if he is fit for the priesthood, why would the Church repeat Her ceremonies twice? This is not only nonsensical, but also an insult to the practice and ceremonies of the Church. But primarily in the conclusion, we are astonished to find only a restatement and clarification of Bawden's previous heresy on lay investiture/extraordinary mission.

"The Pope becomes a cleric BY THE ACCEPTANCE OF PAPAL ELECTION so that he CAN receive the jurisdiction from Almighty God." Now it is clear that he does not believe that God Himself grants him clerical status, but that his acceptance of the papal election itself provides it. In order to fit his pet conjecture into the picture, he is still saying that accepting the call of the people, the only voters in his so-called election — NOT THE ACTUAL CALLING OF THE BISHOP AND ASSIGNMENT TO THE MINISTRY — is what makes him a cleric.  For Bawden places acceptance BEFORE conferral of Divine jurisdiction; he does not make acceptance and conferral simultaneous as the wording of Can. 219 indicates it must be. He makes his acceptation of the lay election and the "clerical status" it confers contingent on his ABILITY to receiveDivine jurisdiction. But if the acceptance of a lay papal election makes him a cleric, then he is "called" by the people, which is a heresy. 

Pope Pius VI condemned a Jansenist version of this notion: "'Power has been given by God to the Church that it might be communicated to the pastors who are its ministers for the salvation of souls.' If thus understood that the power of ecclesiastical ministry is derived from the community of the faithful to the pastors— heretical," (DZ 1502; Canons 108-109). As Pope St. Pius X has declared, only right intention and fitness can constitute the issuance by the bishop of the Divine call. Bawden is saying that the electors are the equivalent of the bishop and can determine fitness; the Church teaches otherwise. The Divine call can come only from the proper bishop who possesses the valid and licit apostolic succession necessary to act in the person of Christ. Pope Pius XII said that while the laity must assume all the duties of the hierarchy in their absence, "nothing can be undertaken against the explicit or implicit will of the Church, or contrary in any way to the rules of faith or morals, or ecclesiastical discipline," (The Mission of Catholic Women, Sept. 25, 1957). The Church has explicitly willed that all priests must be fit for ordination. The natural law and Canon Law demands it. And the Church will not supply for those things required by the natural law, as we will see below. 

Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is not divine right (jure divino) jurisdiction; ecclesiastical jurisdiction is received by canonical mission and is distinct from jure divino jurisdiction. Canon 109 explains this: "In the supreme pontificate, the person legitimately elected and freely accepting the election receives jurisdiction by the divine law itself; in all other degrees of jurisdiction, by canonical appointment." The jurisdiction Christ gave to the Apostles was distinct from that given to Peter alone. Peter received his power first (jure divino) Holy Scripture tells us, and the Apostles received theirs as a group at a later time, (missio canonica). The fullness of power granted by Christ is sufficient; no other power need be added to this. No one can presume to falsify and rearrange the events of Holy Scripture to suit their own peculiar personal and financial circumstances.

Rev. Charles Augustine comments on Can. 109 as follows: "The missio canonica is necessary for all who are inferior to the Pope. For as the Lord sent His Apostles, so in turn He sent others to exercise their spiritual power with authority, and without such credentials no one has authority in the Church." Divine law always presumes that the one elected pope will be at least equal or superior to the rest of the hierarchy in Orders, or will become so immediately after election. Nothing can be wanting in the supreme power of jurisdiction received from Christ except Orders. Repetition of tonsure and a second assignment to the clerical state would be a departure from what Christ Himself said and did; He called the 12 in a certain manner and only once. It is a denial of the Divine and Catholic teaching that Christ Our Lord established Holy Orders prior to jurisdiction by first calling His Apostles. St. Peter was a bishop before he became Pope, and this is the preferred template for papal selection. We must here understand and assimilate what St. Cyprian wrote: "Most of the bishops…set over the Lord's churches throughout the world, hold to the method of evangelical truth and of the Lord's tradition, and depart not by any human and novel institution, from that which Christ our master both taught and did," (Faith of Catholics, Vol. 1, Msgr. Capel, editor). Likewise the Asiatic bishops, commenting on the approbation of the canonical books of Scripture, stated that: "As, on this principle of what Christ had done and taught, the writings of which we are speaking were admitted as sacred and divine…" So what Christ taught and DID is Divine tradition, and binds all Catholics. He called the 12, and He tested and trained them.

Rev. Raymond Kearney tells us that: "The very law of nature demands that power be not entrusted to a person who is not sufficiently competent to make proper use of it…The Church can supply only that power, the disposition of which is entrusted to her; she cannot, therefore, supply what is required by divine or natural law…" (Principles of Delegated Jurisdiction). Kearney cites the theologian Sanchez, who states that in the event a baptized male was invalidly elected Pope, the Church COULD supply; he does not say She should or would supply. In fact he says those claiming the Church supplies in such instances: "must prove not merely that it would be good for the Church to supply…, but that [She] actually does so supply." So Bawden doesn't need to pretend that Rev. Kearney supports his position; far from it. Christ's call to His Apostles was Divine. The Old Testament requirements for admittance to the Jewish priesthood are sufficiently well known that no one need question whether they arise from the natural law. Christ transmits a special function to the bishop to judge the fitness of priestly candidates just as he transmits the power to hear confessions to the priest. The calling of men to the ministry is something that Christ Himself said and did and is a prerequisite required by both the Divine and natural law for tonsure; for certainly Christ called and tested his Apostles. Bawden pretends that despite the lack of any proof of fitness, the Church (his electors) supplies him with mystical tonsure. Rev. Kearney quotes five canonists, including himself, who clearly state the Church will not and cannot supply for something required by the Divine and/or natural law, (fitness). This applied to Bawden pre-election, as Kearney's work was quoted in Will the Catholic Church Survive…? 

"If anyone says that…those who have neither been rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical authority, but come from a different source, are the lawful ministers of the Word AND OF THE SACRAMENTS, let him be anathema." (The Council of Trent, Sess. 23, July 15, 1563; DZ 967, 424)

Bawden has never been examined and tonsured, far less ordained, by a physical person possessing ecclesiastical authority, period. The proper ecclesiastical superior never established his fitness as FACT. That superior never called him, his hair was never cut, and he never received a surplice nor entered a truly Catholic major seminary. No properly designated outward sign indicates the grace and privileges he claims to have received, and Pope Innocent III insists that only "By the tonsure given according to the form of the Church [is] the clerical status conferred," (Woywod-Smith). Who must confer it? Pope Innocent III again tells us in his profession of faith proposed to the Waldenses that the consecration of the Eucharist and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass can be performed only by a "priest, regularly ordained by a visible and perceptible bishop." (The Waldenses were wont to allow those not ordained to handle holy things and administer the Sacraments.)

This visibility and perceptibility must exist to establish proof that any Sacrament, or ceremony associated with it, actually took place; it is based on what Christ said and did Himself. Bawden's mystical tonsure is not a visible and perceptible act or event. His claim to possess clerical status comes from a different source; he has no right to consider himself a pope and to administer the solemn form of the Sacraments in direct contradiction of this anathema. He has tried to weasel out of abusing the Sacraments by claiming he is not subject to Canon Law; it doesn't matter. Heresy also perpetually bars him from the priesthood. This Council of Trent decree is an undeniable teaching of the Deposit of Faith and he has directly denied it — and continues to deny it every day — by his actions and through his other heresies. His mystical tonsure theory injures the nature of the transference of power to the Apostles and their successors as established by Christ. For nowhere is it taught that Divine right jurisdiction confers tonsure; St. Peter was a full-fledged bishop, not a layman nominated to the papacy, when Christ granted him Divine jurisdiction.

Bawden's ill-fated syllogistic hypothesis is purely conjectural; it corresponds to Pope Pius XII's infallible teaching in Humani Generis: "If conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they then be recognized can in no way be admitted," (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis). Bawden admits in Will the Catholic Church Survive…? that his oblique reference to mystical tonsure was only an opinion. Without ever presenting proofs, it suddenly became a full-blown fact — even a "teaching" of the Church. "In doubt, facts cannot be presumed, but must be proved. An hypothesis or explanation that contradicts evident facts is not rationally tenable. An explanation or hypothesis must take account of all the evidence. A demonstration of the necessary truth of some unseen cause, reason or theory requires proof both of the necessity and suitability of the explanation offered and the exclusion of the other attempted explanations," (Rev. Wuellner) And all was based on Bawden's heretical belief that St. Peter received jurisdiction before he received orders.

Rev. A. C. Cotter S. J. states that in order to prove one's case, "terms used in the statement of the thesis" must be explained, "a description of the meaning of the thesis as a whole must be given, and an outline of the various opinions formerly or now held on the subject of the thesis," must be provided, (ABC of Scholastic Philosophy). Bawden and his followers castigate this author for providing these proofs, calling it "bookbashing." Bawden has consistently relieved what few followers remain of the necessity of intellectualizing their faith, so it is no wonder that they are not even able to confirm or understand the teachings of the faith. Bawden's mantra of "obedience" is intended to keep them forever in the mushroom club. Our Lord Jesus Christ, who first called the 12, established Holy Orders. To become a cleric, that bishop standing in direct succession from the Apostles must call one to the priesthood. Tonsure itself may be only a sacred ceremony, but the calling or confirming of the candidate's vocation by the bishop preceding tonsure is the continuation of a revealed Tradition that admits of only one factual explanation. And even so, Christ's actions show popes were expected to be members of the hierarchy, not simple clerics.

Bawden repeatedly asserts that I have not proven this case, when "no argument or conclusion contrary to the evident facts is valid," (Rev. Wuellner). He insinuates that additional evidence is required, again contradicting scholastic principles. According to the rules of argument that bind all true Catholics, "All proof must be reducible to self-evident premises. The demand for an infinite series of premises and the rejection of any self-evident premises is unreasonable and skeptical," (Rev. Bernard Wuellner, S. J., Principles of Scholastic Philosophy). Bawden has accused me of basing this entire case on personal hatred and vindictiveness, but objective observers can see that this is only a projection of his own motives onto the one targeted as his enemy. What is presented here is not the personal attacks he and his subordinates resort to, but proofs based solely on scholastic method and evidence; evidence he cannot present, because it doesn't exist. I have a strict obligation as a Catholic to present all these proofs under Can. 1325 and the laws governing scholastic philosophy. Bawden owes me, especially — but all Catholics — a retraction of his claims to the papacy and a public apology. But sadly his personal animus towards me will never allow this to happen.

Bawden's fulminating heresies are self-evident. His lack of fitness for the priesthood, far less the papacy, based on these pre-election heresies and other deficiencies is self-evident. His inability to defend himself also is self-evident because there is no defense against manifest heresy. The case presented on this site has been proven AND IT STANDS. It is time to shake the dust from our sandals and leave Bawden and his followers to their just desserts. It is an horrendous insult to God that these "faithful Catholics" now mouth Bawden's heresies publicly without even realizing that they mock the very Christ who established the Church; that they freely choose to believe the teachings of an antiChrist rather than learn the truths of faith. God, who uses men as the means to convert their brethren warns: "Because I called and you refused, and have neglected my reprehensions, I also will laugh in your destruction and will mock when that shall come which you feared," (Prov. 1: 24). And from the prophet Jeremiah: "We would have cured Babylon, but she is not humbled; let us forsake her," (Jer. 51: 9).

May God bless all those of good will with the graces necessary for conversion, and all Catholics everywhere who keep the Faith with the grace of final perseverance. Adieu.