A Challenge to Linus II and Pius 13

Are You The Pope? Prove Your Claims!

This is the last time that I am requesting the papal claimants Linus II and Pius XIII to furnish the reasons and justifications for their claims. In case I do not receive a response, I shall consider that they do not have any justifications, and thus reject them as being obviously false.
In my site, EOPERU (Extra-Ordinary Papal Election Round-Up), I have set out the logic of and authority for a lay election as a means by which the Church can supply itself with the true pope, if this is not already done.

What would be the rules governing a lay assembly? By logic:
  1. Because we are equal members of a class - the laity - we are all equally entitled to participate.
  2. The first person(s) to take the initiative for summoning and organizing this assembly, given that he is not a crook or notorious for some thing, has the sole right to carry his initiative to completion.
  3. It is necessary to notify all those eligible, but the lack of or refusal to participation does not and cannot nullify its result.
  4. If there are too many who are willing to participate, a system of electing delegates to actually participate in the college of electors and elect the pope can be had recourse to.
  5. If for some reason the process is vitiated and or the electee is doubtful, the organizer(s) of a new initiative must necessarily prove this vitiation, doubt and or nullity BEFORE attempting another assembly and election.
Now, there have been three such attempts (of some sorts) at a lay election, resulting in the Claimants, in chronological order, of David Bawden as Pope Michael 1 in 1990, Fr. (now Bishop?) Victor von Pentz, (a Byzantine uniate?), as Pope Linus 2 in 1994, and lastly Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher as Pope Pius 13 in 1998.

I have examined the claim of David Bawden, and have found it defective and therefore null. (Article: The Sad Misadventures of David Bawden and Theresa Benns)

That leaves Linus 2 and Pius 13. Neither has as yet presented an Apologia for his claims and why the previous claim(s) are to be disregarded in their favour. Indeed, Linus 2 has loftily demanded my submission, saying, "I am the Pope, therefore submit to me" without answering my request for the Justifications of his claims. (see Correspondence with Linus II)

I am therefore at this moment, still awaiting von Pentz and Pulvermacher's defence of their claims.

I know that a claimant who refuses to furnish the reasons for his claims is to be rejected as an impostor. I do not know how much longer I need to wait, before I can dismiss the claims of von Pentz (Linus 2) and Pulvermacher (Pius 13) for their failure or refusal to present it, and begin to look for another claim. However, I do know that there must be a TIME LIMIT.

Specifically, every claim party must:
  1. FURNISH a reason for their election and its resultant papal claimant.
  2. Why they disregard the previous gatherings and their resultant electees, so that they could proceed with yet another attempt and elect a new claimant. For otherwise, if they did not have this cleared up in their minds and present the reasons to the world, they are liable to the charge of Schism, as attempting to elect another pope or papal claimant when there is already another apparently legitimate claimant!
  3. Whether they fulfilled the necessary formalities by inviting all the believers to attend and participate in the proposed gathering and election.
  4. Their attitude towards and relationship with the city and Church of Rome, the proper seat of the legitimate Pope, the buildings of which are presently in the physical possession of the New Church heresiarchs. (See my articles 'Not In Communion with Rome?', 'Romanism: The Catholic Doctrine of', and 'Restoring the Church'.)
Prakash John Mascarenhas, Bombay. India.
Papal Issues Site at http://www.oocities.org/orthopapism/eoperu
Email me at Prakash John Mascarenhas @ Yahoo!