One thing, or rather one person that is mysteriously missing in all the hoo-rah about Siri is a man by the name of Kenneth J. Mock. In the late 1980's, Mock was in favor of an imperfect council/papal election. He was not against Siri and considered it possible that the imperfect council then being discussed could confirm Siri's "election." He remained pro-election, calling David Bawden on several occasions to firm up details and strategy concerning an upcoming trip to Europe to ostensibly support the election. After visiting Europe with eight copies of Will the Catholic Church Survive…? in May 1990, it appears that Mock changed his mind about the election (or had it changed for him), although he gave no indication as to how or why this happened. From this point on he opposed the election and began actively campaigning against it. On July 15, 1990 Mock, accompanied by Patrick Henry appeared in St. Marys, Kansas to try and stop the election. Needless to say he did not succeed. Afterwards Mock denounced the election and continued campaigning for a council. The results of this campaign are presented below.
Assertions made by Mock in 1996:
• Mock first notes that already in 1994 his "group" was rent by division and was subsequently reorganized. The dissenters were Elizabeth Gerstner and friends, who departed to elect Linus II. (Apparently we were not the only ones intolerant of endless discussions and unnecessary delays.)
• He falsely asserts that Pope Michael resigned prior to the election of Linus II. Without any substantiation or verification of this statement, Kathleen Plumb repeated this falsehood in her publication The Northern Light circa 1999 or earlier. Mock and others who abandoned the conclave effort in early 1990 openly campaigned for Pope Michael's resignation. Proof of this statement appeared in the Letters to the Editor section, May 1991 issue of Francinta Messenger and also are contained in private correspondence.
• Without giving credit, Mock rewrote the application of the devolution principle from Will the Catholic Church Survive…?, ignoring the teachings of Canon Law on how one is to proceed when there is no specific treatment of a certain matter. He then proceeded to shamelessly appropriate our series detailing the election that was circulated privately then published in part in Francinta Messenger in 1988. Points made in the original election series are repeated almost verbatim in the published writings of Tomas Tello (Wandea).
• In this he joined Dennis D'Amico who also reproduced the series Upon This Rock, without the authors' permissions, in his short-lived newsletter New Horizons. D'Amico only ceased his unCatholic antics when threatened with legal action. He then proceeded to bad-mouth and harangue us. This is the same D'Amico who, like Peter Tran Van Khoat, suggested that Traditionalists form a Catholic secret society. Here is yet another player missing from the mix.
• Departing from Canon Law and the teachings of the Church, Mock states that the natural law can be used to construct an election, i.e., democratic principles condemned by the Church. This is false; only a Pope canonically elected is truly Pope, as Cum ex and the Church Herself declares. Mock pretended to be able to use the devolution principle according to the natural law to accomplish this as noted above, but any arguments issuing from his proposal only repeat what already appeared in Will the Catholic Church Survive…?
• From 1996 to 1998, Mock worked in concert with Lucian Pulvermacher to promote an election. Pulvermacher writes: "For two and a half years under the direction of Ken Mock there was a steady process of preparing for the papal election. To the main workers on that process of election, the efforts at election seemed to be an exercise of futility. Then a unique fact surfaced. Father Herman Adam of Germany revealed that he was incardinated in the Diocese of Trier, a fact that made him a member of the Novus Ordo Church with John Paul II as his pope. Both he and Ken Mock were in on this deception. At once the other laymen workers took command of the election process. During all the previous two and a half years, the people and the devil were sound asleep, for nothing good (a papal election) was in the making. We were paddling a bicycle without a drive chain. However, as soon as the election process went into high gear, severe opposition surfaced for no apparent reason except that it was diabolically inspired. The first rumbling of trouble was seen in a terrible letter written by Dominic Gruetzmacher. Shortly after that, ninety percent plus of the Catholics in Wisconsin, Michigan and Nevada cut themselves (in schism) from the remaining Catholics," (end of Pulvermacher quote).
• A summary of Mock's principles was published by a "Bp." Tomas Tello, who claims his episcopacy through the Thuc line. A Vietnamese named Nguyen, who publicly calls for a papal election, cites Tello's work on his web site. Nguyen, until recently was supported by Elizabeth Gerstner and Heidi Hagen, (now both deceased). A man by the name of Nguyen once associated himself with "Fr." Peter Tran Van Khoat, and it may very well be that Nguyen is working on this council at Khoat's behest.
• It is our contention that Mock may be working "under the covers" so to speak with Homero Johas in Brazil and others in Europe to facilitate the council and its domination by Siri supporters. Twice Mock has acted as an agent provacateur, if Lucian Pulvermacher's story can be trusted. It is a foregone conclusion that he is at work once again, even if his presence is not acknowledged. Evidence to support this statement will be presented below.
In 1999, Mock made several false allegations against the 1990 book, Pope Michael and the 1990 election effort in the course of private correspondence shared with us by a friend. Because points made in this letter keep resurfacing, (and why would this be the case if Mock was not indeed agitating somewhere) they will be addressed here once and for all.
1.
Mock claims key people in Europe were very supportive of an election movement. Jim Condit claims (with D'Amico) that the entire election proposition was viewed as a joke. Someone needs to get on the same page here.
Mock claims key people in Europe were very supportive of an election movement. Jim Condit claims (with D'Amico) that the entire election proposition was viewed as a joke. Someone needs to get on the same page here.2.The book [Will the Catholic Church Survive…?] was ridden with errors. What are they, where are they that they might be corrected and where are the proofs your corrections are valid?
The book [Will the Catholic Church Survive…?] was ridden with errors. What are they, where are they that they might be corrected and where are the proofs your corrections are valid?3.Briton's Catholic Library solidly condemned these errors. For starters, Briton's Library (its name before Martin Gwynne became the proprietor) is not and was never Catholic, although many good sources were printed and quoted by its writers and Catholic doctrine was repeated in their works. The history of this schismatic and controversial (to say the least) organization is a story all in itself. Oddly enough Briton's Catholic Library (BCL), following the philosophy of Gwynne's friend Coomaraswamy was the first to begin circulating the Sensus Catholicus theory, now a dogma with the Siri set. (And while we are on the subject of Britons and Coomaraswamy, by this author and Lucio Mascarenhas exposing Coomaraswamy's heresies, among them Sensus Catholicus.) In fact it was another (former?) Gwynne associate, Nicholas Hettinga, who first pulled out of the election effort and who later was the first to ask Pope Michael to resign.
Briton's Catholic Library solidly condemned these errors. For starters, Briton's Library (its name before Martin Gwynne became the proprietor) is not and was never Catholic, although many good sources were printed and quoted by its writers and Catholic doctrine was repeated in their works. The history of this schismatic and controversial (to say the least) organization is a story all in itself. Oddly enough Briton's Catholic Library (BCL), following the philosophy of Gwynne's friend Coomaraswamy was the first to begin circulating the Sensus Catholicus theory, now a dogma with the Siri set. (And while we are on the subject of Britons and Coomaraswamy, by this author and Lucio Mascarenhas exposing Coomaraswamy's heresies, among them Sensus Catholicus.) In fact it was another (former?) Gwynne associate, Nicholas Hettinga, who first pulled out of the election effort and who later was the first to ask Pope Michael to resign. It is quite interesting, I think, that Kathleen Plumb, Jim Condit Jr., Rama Coomaraswamy and John Daly (formerly of BCL) all are on the board of The Four Marks; also that Plumb (the editor) first ran the falsehood in her other publication, The Northern Light, that Pope Michael had resigned. Pope Michael was never asked whether this report was true, and neither were any of his followers. No source for the information is given. With these essential ingredients for veracity lacking, such a report would not be allowed to appear in a secular newspaper. Yet despite requests for its removal, this false report remains posted on The Northern Light web site.
Now in the newspaper world, all written or verbal reports are verified before going to press. If a mistake is made, one of three things occurs: the story is rerun with the correct information, (usual scenario). Or, a correction is made to an otherwise accurate story and run as such in as prominent a place as the original story appeared. The third and most serious form of correction is the retraction. In this case the reporter publicly apologizes for totally false information that should never have gone into print. Conscientious reporters pray they never have to print one. Refusing to run a retraction of demonstrably false information is generally grounds for dismissal.
The obligation to present only the truth is more binding on Catholic publishers and editors by far than those who write for secular newspapers. Pope Pius XII, in a Feb. 13, 1956 address to book critics emphasized the rights of the authors such critics were reviewing. He told them that "The critic…must be aware that above him stands always the truth. Unfair criticism constitutes a real wrong against [another]…whose reputation and…rightful interests may be damaged by it. In that case, the critic has a specific obligation to retract." How much more so, then, is this true in the case of an actual error of fact. Since such a retraction has never appeared, other reports in the aforementioned publications might rightly be viewed as unreliable and substandard.
Secondly, Homero Johas' refutation of Gwynne's accusations in Is a Pope Necessary? are well documented and thoroughly convincing. His refutation of Britons' objections are totally in keeping with Canon Law and Catholic teaching. Since Mock refers the recipient of his letter to Johas' works, it is difficult to understand why he would on the one hand point to Britons' criticisms and on the other hand support Johas' other writings on the vacant see and a papal election. Basically all Johas does is support the arguments presented for the papal election in Will the Catholic Church Survive…?, although he does not accept the 1990 conclave per se. It appears then that Mock's omission is only an attempt to use Johas' works to support his own efforts while condemning the 1990 election.
4.Mock wrote that Bawden wrongly claimed he was acting according to Canon Law…Canon Law has ceased to bind…A valid election can only be conducted under the provisions of the natural law. Again, Mock claims that the natural law, not Canon Law governs a papal election. He claims to be knowledgeable in Canon Law. Why then is he ignorant of the fact that only a Pope canonically elected is truly Pope, as Cum ex and the Church Herself (DZ 650, 652, 674) declare? And where is the PROOF Bawden didn't act according to Canon Law? Or is Mock unable to draw conclusions from the law as Bawden did?
Mock wrote that Bawden wrongly claimed he was acting according to Canon Law…Canon Law has ceased to bind…A valid election can only be conducted under the provisions of the natural law. Again, Mock claims that the natural law, not Canon Law governs a papal election. He claims to be knowledgeable in Canon Law. Why then is he ignorant of the fact that only a Pope canonically elected is truly Pope, as Cum ex and the Church Herself (DZ 650, 652, 674) declare? And where is the PROOF Bawden didn't act according to Canon Law? Or is Mock unable to draw conclusions from the law as Bawden did? 5.Mock protested, They acted too soon. Had they been willing to hold off and discuss the legal and doctrinal ramifications with all the fine minds who had given the problem attention, they would have seen the stupidity of what they proposed. So where were all these fine minds from 1969 on and what have they done to provide the Church with a Pope? Why did it take two lay people to propose and implement an election? Where were they before then? Where have they been for the past 16 years? Why were their erudite opinions not taken seriously long before the election was proposed? What is it that they have accomplished in nearly 50 years?!
Mock protested, They acted too soon. Had they been willing to hold off and discuss the legal and doctrinal ramifications with all the fine minds who had given the problem attention, they would have seen the stupidity of what they proposed. So where were all these fine minds from 1969 on and what have they done to provide the Church with a Pope? Why did it take two lay people to propose and implement an election? Where were they before then? Where have they been for the past 16 years? Why were their erudite opinions not taken seriously long before the election was proposed? What is it that they have accomplished in nearly 50 years?!6.In an act of Catholic charity, Patrick Henry and I, at great cost to ourselves, made a trip to Kansas in July 1990… Why doesn't Mock give the actual date here? Because to do so would prove him a hypocrite. After deploring our refusal to delay the election, he then states that a certain period of discussion is necessary before proceeding with the actual election. But does he practice what he preaches? Mock and Henry arrived on July 15, 1990, allowing less than a day to resolve what he represents as a plethora of "errors" and issues. And then he addressed nothing concerning the cessation of Canon Law or the natural law, theories he developed only later or hid from view. In fact all that was discussed was Mock's contention that we could not elect because we had not been absolved from material schism and heresy.
In an act of Catholic charity, Patrick Henry and I, at great cost to ourselves, made a trip to Kansas in July 1990… Why doesn't Mock give the actual date here? Because to do so would prove him a hypocrite. After deploring our refusal to delay the election, he then states that a certain period of discussion is necessary before proceeding with the actual election. But does he practice what he preaches? Mock and Henry arrived on July 15, 1990, allowing less than a day to resolve what he represents as a plethora of "errors" and issues. And then he addressed nothing concerning the cessation of Canon Law or the natural law, theories he developed only later or hid from view. In fact all that was discussed was Mock's contention that we could not elect because we had not been absolved from material schism and heresy. 7.Number 6 gives the lie to Mock's later assertion to others that he and Henry came to vote and were refused admission. He had every chance to mention this in his letter, a letter in which he was doing all in his power to convince a Traditionalist that the 1990 election was based on false principles. So if this truly happened, why does he fail to say so? Those wishing to send a SASE to the papal post office box can obtain a copy of this letter.
Number 6 gives the lie to Mock's later assertion to others that he and Henry came to vote and were refused admission. He had every chance to mention this in his letter, a letter in which he was doing all in his power to convince a Traditionalist that the 1990 election was based on false principles. So if this truly happened, why does he fail to say so? Those wishing to send a SASE to the papal post office box can obtain a copy of this letter. 8.On his arrival in Kansas, Mock said, We found a man possessed with megalomania — one not open to any discussion. This is a strange choice of words. Megalomania is not a word one hears that often and yet this word was just applied recently to Pope Michael by Mr. Condit.
On his arrival in Kansas, Mock said, We found a man possessed with megalomania — one not open to any discussion. This is a strange choice of words. Megalomania is not a word one hears that often and yet this word was just applied recently to Pope Michael by Mr. Condit. 9.Mock entertains delusions of grandeur. He claims to have studied Canon Law for 10 years and yet there are no written proofs of his canonical expertise in existence to the best of our knowledge. He has never proven any ability to reason using the canons or ever provided any believable arguments — structured according to the practice of the Church — that refute those found in the book and/or our later works. And why, when earlier he claims that Canon Law has ceased to bind, would he then emphasize his long study of it, and his endorsement by Trad "priests" in his "conclusions?" Most of what we have seen from his pen a) was written post-1990 and b) used variations of arguments taken from our own works.
Mock entertains delusions of grandeur. He claims to have studied Canon Law for 10 years and yet there are no written proofs of his canonical expertise in existence to the best of our knowledge. He has never proven any ability to reason using the canons or ever provided any believable arguments — structured according to the practice of the Church — that refute those found in the book and/or our later works. And why, when earlier he claims that Canon Law has ceased to bind, would he then emphasize his long study of it, and his endorsement by Trad "priests" in his "conclusions?" Most of what we have seen from his pen a) was written post-1990 and b) used variations of arguments taken from our own works.10.A key error in [Bawden's] logic was that he ignored the fact that heretics are not members of the Church and only members of the Church can participate in an election…Public, material heretics are not members of the Church and are not qualified electors, even if they profess their faith before laymen — they must first be absolved by a priest with the requisite faculties...The 1990 election is null and void. Here again, Mock contradicts himself. Earlier in his letter we find him stating that The crime of heresy follows only where the sin exists first. But in this paragraph he is trying to excuse priests, who are bound to a higher level of knowledge than the laity. Pope Paul IV, in his infallible Bull, Cum ex, clearly absolves the laity from all guilt in accepting a false Pope. This is truth that no one, not even Pope Mock, can contest. And in the case of material heresy, Sabetti and Barrett teach that no fault is committed. Other authors still consider material heretics and schismatics as members of the Church This article by Rev. J.C. Fenton on the Mystical Body of Christ provides the elements necessary for Church membership as laid down by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi.
A key error in [Bawden's] logic was that he ignored the fact that heretics are not members of the Church and only members of the Church can participate in an election…Public, material heretics are not members of the Church and are not qualified electors, even if they profess their faith before laymen — they must first be absolved by a priest with the requisite faculties...The 1990 election is null and void. Here again, Mock contradicts himself. Earlier in his letter we find him stating that The crime of heresy follows only where the sin exists first. But in this paragraph he is trying to excuse priests, who are bound to a higher level of knowledge than the laity. Pope Paul IV, in his infallible Bull, Cum ex, clearly absolves the laity from all guilt in accepting a false Pope. This is truth that no one, not even Pope Mock, can contest. And in the case of material heresy, Sabetti and Barrett teach that no fault is committed. Other authors still consider material heretics and schismatics as members of the Church This article by Rev. J.C. Fenton on the Mystical Body of Christ provides the elements necessary for Church membership as laid down by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi. 11.The election of a pontiff by lay persons is only possible under the natural law. Cajetan, who described the devolution principle was a scholastic. There is no indication he was referring to the natural law. Canon 178 mentions devolution in connection with the election of an unworthy candidate. Once the cardinals elected a heretic, the election devolved upon "…him who succeeds to the rights of the voters to fill the office." And according to the theologians, including St. Bellarmine, this is the universal Church. Nicholas II allowed for the laity to assist the clergy in an election in the event of an exceptional situation. And if there are no clergy, then impossibility excuses from the obligation to involve the clergy. A cleric is defined by Canon Law itself. According to the teachings of several canonists, Traditionalist "priests" do not qualify as clerics. Ergo, no Traditionalist "priests" as such could vote in the election, although they could have voted as laymen in certain cases.
The election of a pontiff by lay persons is only possible under the natural law. Cajetan, who described the devolution principle was a scholastic. There is no indication he was referring to the natural law. Canon 178 mentions devolution in connection with the election of an unworthy candidate. Once the cardinals elected a heretic, the election devolved upon "…him who succeeds to the rights of the voters to fill the office." And according to the theologians, including St. Bellarmine, this is the universal Church. Nicholas II allowed for the laity to assist the clergy in an election in the event of an exceptional situation. And if there are no clergy, then impossibility excuses from the obligation to involve the clergy. A cleric is defined by Canon Law itself. According to the teachings of several canonists, Traditionalist "priests" do not qualify as clerics. Ergo, no Traditionalist "priests" as such could vote in the election, although they could have voted as laymen in certain cases. A few comments need to be made here concerning Mr. Mock and his prejudices about Canon Law. Mock presents himself as an expert in all Canon Law. Yet prior to the election effort, there is no evidence he did any written work of any kind along these lines. While claiming Canon Law no longer binds in our situation, he still holds himself as an expert in this field and (unsuccessfully) attempts to reason from canonical principals. What those reading Mock's condemnation of Pope Michael do not realize is that Kenneth Mock had done all in his power to release himself from his marriage obligations. To do this he had to study that section of Canon Law in order to learn what the Church taught on this matter. Canon Law did not give him the answer he desired and this prejudiced him against it. David Bawden did not support Mock's efforts to end his marriage because Canon Law would not allow it. This especially infuriated Mock because at that time he already had acquired a girlfriend. So Mock knew that if Bawden was elected he could not expect a sympathetic consideration of his case. This is why he rejected the election and continued to seek a "pope" who would do his bidding.
Others may have become entangled in his web along the way or were perhaps at his side all along. Like Giuffre, Mock was in favor of the s-l-o-o-o-w approach. Hutton Gibson expected to see Giuffre's book (which he paid for) by the time Mock held his first conference in 1994. There have been splits, upheavals internal strife but no election in nearly 20 years, when the first efforts began to take shape. This was precisely what the six who elected in 1990 feared and wished to avoid at all costs. Here it is appropriate to quote from a theologian writing in the 1940s. "Not Canon Law, but the IGNORANCE of Canon Law sends people to hell," (Rev. Joseph Donovan, CM, JCD H & P, Vol. 44, pg. 690). And Ken Mock was ignorant of Canon Law. Those who see Canon Law as a foil to their own desires for Mass and Sacraments, also many other illicit things, are laboring under a prejudice against Canon Law. That they have refused to apply logic to this prejudice is a good indication of just how strong it really is.
When any prized edifice is damaged or destroyed, whatever can be saved is eagerly gathered and preserved. The 1917 Code was a masterpiece proposed and constructed by a saint, Pope St. Pius X. Both Popes Pius XI and XII as priests aided in its codification. Rev. Neuberger cited Church law concerning discipline as negatively infallible, meaning that Canon Law cannot work to the harm of souls or the destruction of the divine principle of perpetuity and infallibility on which the Church is built. The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia under “Discipline” states that it is the UNANIMOUS OPINION of the theologians that discipline enjoys a negative, indirect infallibility, i.e., “... the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or Divine law would exact.” Pope Pius IX declared the unanimous opinion of theologians to be infallible, and hence anything determined by them unanimously must be firmly believed, (DZ 1683). Furthermore, we have the words of Pope Pius IX, in his Encyclical Quartus Supra, where he teaches: “... discipline is often so closely united to dogma, it has such an influence on its preservation and on its purity, that the sacred Councils have not hesitated in many cases to pronounce anathemas against those guilty of disciplinary violations and separated them from communion with the Church.” Leo XIII states: “In setting how far the limits of obedience extend, let no one imagine that the authority of the sacred pastors, and above all of the Roman Pontiff, need be obeyed only insofar as it is concerned with dogma, the obstinate denial of which entails the guilt of heresy...Christian men must be willing to be ruled and governed by the authority and direction of ... (in the first place) the Apostolic See …When the Church speaks, even when She does not speak with all the weight of Her infallible utterance, She does so invariably to give us SAFE GUIDANCE... a Catholic is PRACTICALLY secure in listening to the voice of those whom God has set to rule the Church,” (Sapientiae Christiane see DZ 1673 and 1792).
The constitutions and decrees of the Holy Pontiffs are most especially embodied in Canon Law, according to Volume IX (iii) of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Concerning Canon Law's constitution, Rev. Francis J. Schaeffer writes in this volume: “THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF CANON LAW IS GOD, whose will is manifested either by the very nature of things (natural Divine law) or by Revelation (positive Divine law)...To attain its sublime end, the Church, endowed by its Founder with legislative power, makes laws in conformity with natural and Divine law. The sources or authors of this positive ecclesiastical law are essentially the episcopate and its head, the pope, the successors of the Apostolic College and its divinely appointed head, St. Peter. They are, properly speaking, the active sources of canon law. Their activity is exercised in its most solemn form by the ecumenical councils... (These) councils, especially...Trent, hold an exceptional place in ecclesiastical law...the sovereign pontiff is the most fruitful source of Canon Law: ... From the earliest ages the letters of the Roman Pontiffs constitute, with the canons of the Councils, the principal element of Canon Law...They are everywhere relied upon and collected, and the ancient canonical compilations contain a large number of these precious decretals.” The Canons, then cannot, by their very nature, abrogate anything of Divine law and must be in conformity with that law. The natural law is part and parcel of the canons; it cannot be separated from them without destroying the essence of Church law itself. Rev. Schaeffer, far superior in his knowledge to Mock, has demonstrated better than anything we can say just how far afield Mock's understanding of Canon Law and what was presented in Will the Catholic Church Survive…? truly is. Mock's reactionary appeal to the natural law must be measured against this standard set by Schaeffer and judged accordingly.
Missing Pieces: Backstage Props for the Siri Fiction
V/ That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, in Me and I in Thee; that they also may be one in Us; that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me. (John xvii: 21.)
V. I say unto thee, that thou art Peter;
R. And upon this Rock I will build My Church.
V/ LORD Jesus Christ, Who saidst unto Thine apostles; Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you; regard not our sins, but the faith of Thy Church, and grant unto her that peace and unity which are agreeable to Thy will. Who livest and reignest God forever and ever. R/ Amen.
They shall not partake of holy things, until a high priest shall arise for evidence and truth. (Offertory for the Mass for the Election of a Pope)
