The name “Vatican in Exile” was coined by Pope Michael I. The name indicates that the Pope is exiled from the historic Seat of St. Peter in the Vatican in Rome, Italy. The figures operating there are not Catholics, and the person calling himself “Pope” is in fact an anti-pope.
How did David Allen Bawden, the later Pope Michael, arrive at this conclusion?
In one of his videos on YouTube he relates that from an early age on, it was clear to him and his parents that the changes starting to be imposed in the 1960s were not in accordance with Catholic beliefs and traditions. They started to reach out to like-minded people and research the reasons for that historic shift.
What Happened on October 26, 1958 and thereafter?
by Pope Michael I, in 2019 [excerpt]
Much has been written about this conclave and many support the proposition that Joseph Cardinal Siri was actually elected that day, accepted and took the name of Gregory XVII. Then the enemies of the Church intervened and prevented him from moving forward. Some say he was forced to resign in favor of Angelo Roncalli who deliberately took the name and number of a previous claimant to the Papacy, John XXIII. Baldassarre Cossa was elected to succeed Alexander V, who was elected at the Council of Pisa. He took the name John and was the twenty-third of that name. Historians, Theologians and Canonists in the Catholic Church now consider the line proceeding from Pope Urban VI and ending with Pope Gregory XII as the true line, thus making this John XXIII an antipope, during the Western Schism.
Those promoting the proposition that Joesph Cardinal Siri indeed elected use a lot of things, which are not pertinent the case. They support their case with private prophecy and some even use the Secret of La Salette, which has been put on the Index of prohibited books. Also this proposition became public with the proposition that Siri had been elected in the 1963 conclave, but was prevented from answering whether he accepted the election or not. This made him pope elect. Gary Giuffre, a strong proponent of the Siri claim to the papacy, wrote a five part series entitled “Exile of the Pope Elect”.
What is the evidence in this case?
Let us start with a book written in 1959: “On Tuesday evening [Oct. 26, 1958] the crowds in the square saw smoke pouring out of the stovepipe of the Sistine Chapel at 5:08 p.m. It appeared white to some and dark to others. But what made everybody in the square feel that the big moment had arrived was the brevity of the signal and the scantiness of the smoke … Someone telephoned the Osservatore Romano to announce that the newly-elected Pope was Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani. The call had been made from the Loggia delle Dame above the entrance of the bronze portal leading into Vatican City. The information was worthy of attention because from this vantage point it would not have been impossible to hear, if the voices were loud enough, something being confidentially discussed behind the windows of the conclave enclosure. The news of Cardinal Ottaviani’s ‘election’ was sent out by the press agencies but then prudently stopped.” [Above All A Shepherd, Ugo Groppi and Julius S. Lombardi, 1959; pgs. 172]
A look at newspapers from October 27th, the fact that white smoke appeared for five minutes in Rome from the Conclave is without question. Also the activities in the Papal Palace were those indicative of the election of a Pope.
In her still unpublished memoirs, Vatican news correspondent, and long time reporter for the Associated Press wire service, Gabriella Montemayor (1912-2005), whose career spanned 50 years, summarized the rumors that circulated among informed journalists in October 1958: “Siri was alleged to have been elected at the conclave of 1958, from which, instead, came out Roncalli. The three well-known smoke signals, white, black, and then, finally, white, had aroused not a little perplexity and the same comment throughout the whole of the Italian peninsula: Who had been elected at the first white smoke?
“Everyone in Genoa insisted, even from the first day: ‘It most certainly was Siri.’ Could he have abdicated? Had he been forced out? Was it politics or the Holy Ghost? The mystery remains yet today. However, the [new] Vatican which burst unexpectedly before our eyes was a totally different Vatican from that of Pius XII, who had condemned Communism, excommunicating whoever had collaborated in any way with the atheists. The excommunication was surely still legitimate when the new pontificate opened its arms to the Soviets, even as Roncalli was hailed, in a shameless manner, as the “good Pope.” [Gabriella Montemayor, I’ll Tell My Cat, 1993, unpublished manuscript, Rome, chapter 4: “Conclave,” page 28.]
A second testimony in this regard was obtained by Mr. Gary Giuffré during an interview conducted in London, England in July, 1993 with Father Jean-Marie Charles-Roux, a former Vatican official and intelligence officer. The aged priest claimed that Joseph Cardinal Siri of Genoa had been elected and also accepted the Papal office, but was then immediately shoved aside, without his actually abdicating. According to Fr. Charles-Roux, a very serious threat was delivered to Siri and the assembled Cardinals through Cardinal Tisserant, the Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals, shortly after the acceptance of office by the new Pope. Fr. Charles-Roux, in addition to having been interviewed by Gary Giuffré in 1993 as related above, spoke out again in September 2004 in the periodical Inside the Vatican on page 41. In this article he stated that, “There were certain irregularities about the election during that 1958 conclave, as Cardinal Tisserant has himself acknowledged. Some say Agagianian was elected, others Siri, others some other cardinal, and that the camerlengo [=chamberlain] then annulled the election. In any case, I’m quite sure John XXIII chose his name, the name of an antipope [of the 15th century], quite consciously, to show he had been irregularly elected.”
The 1963 Conclave
Louis Hubert Remy wrote an article, “The Pope: Could He Be Cardinal Siri?” Let us consider parts of this article, which was published in English by Father Daniel Jones in his news letter, Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes:
In one of his writings, Prince Scortesco, German cousin of Prince Borghese, President of the Conclave which elected Montini to the Supreme Pontificate, gives the following information concerning the Conclave of 21 June 1963: “During the Conclave, a Cardinal left the Sistine Chapel, met with the representatives of B’nai – B’rith, announced to them the election of Cardinal Siri. They replied by saying that the persecutions against the Church would continue at once. Returning to the Conclave, he made Montini to be elected.” [Guiseppe Cardinal Siri died on May 2, 1989]
Conclusion
Much has been said about the possibility that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope in 1958. There is also discussion of the 1963 conclave. What would Siri have done in the subsequent three conclaves? If he was elected Pope and forced to resign in 1958, his resignation is invalid. He could have presented this to the Cardinals, some of whom were eye witness to the crimes in 1958 and ask them to rectify things.
Let us review the facts:
- Something happened on October 26, 1958 that indicates that a Pope was elected.
- Reports after the fact confirm this.
- We can not establish with certainty that there was no Pope on October 28, 1958, when Angelo Roncalli appeared as Pope John XXIII.
- The actions of Roncalli and his successors are not those of a Pope, but those of heretics.
- Therefore, these men claiming to be Pope in actual fact were not Pope.
- This invalidates all of the changes coming before Vatican II, which is the second of nothing.
- This invalidates what John XXIII called as The Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican.
- Further this invalidates everything that flowed in the spirit of Vatican II after the Council closed, forming the Conciliar Church.
Where is the Catholic Church?
by Pope Michael I, in 2008 [excerpt]
Prior to the convening of the Vatican Council in 1869, many errors were in circulation concerning the constitution of the Church and the nature of the Pope’s primacy. Some contended the Church consisted primarily of the faithful, who should even have their say in the defining of Church dogma a la democratic-style government. They believed that the Pope served only as a figurehead for the Church, while the real powers lay in the bishops and the faithful. These errors were the result of Gallicanism, a French movement at first political which later spread to Church matters in the 14th century. These errors were experiencing a revival shortly before the Vatican Council and were exacerbated by other more dangerous beliefs, especially the religious brand of Liberalism condemned by Pope Pius IX before the calling of the Council. Yet despite the Vatican Council’s clear statements on infallibility, the indefectibility of Christ’s Church which was to last “unto the consummation,” and the perpetuity of St. Peter’s successor’s, the majority of self-proclaimed sede vacante “Traditionalists” today have returned to the very errors the Council condemned.
A close examination of the reigns of Roncalli (John XXIII), Montini (Paul VI), Luciani (JP I), and Wojtyla (JP II) reveal that all these men were heretics prior to their elections, Roncalli being a suspected Modernist for years during the reign of Pope Pius XII. So also with Montini, who was no friend of Pius XII’s and was dismissed as Vatican pro-secretary in 1953. (Pope Pius XII refused to make him a cardinal, a task Roncalli was only too happy to accomplish as his first duty.) Unlike other crises in the Church’s history, no valid Pope was elected to oppose these anti-Popes, resulting in the longest interregnum in the history of the Church. Had true Catholics understood their faith and demanded for the election of a true Pope based on such an examination, the full extent of the tragedy of the past several decades could have been avoided. But Traditionalist leaders saw to it that every attempt to avert an extended interregnum was aborted.
By pretending that no means to restore the primacy are available and God will guide them without a Pope in these difficult times, the lay and clerical leaders of Traditional groups dared to gather confused Catholics following Vatican II and indoctrinate them in false principles. They deliberately frustrated the express will of God that His Church always exist, exactly as it was constituted by Christ during His earthly ministry. Some today even pretend that the Holy See is “quasi-vacant,” and that an apparent yet invalid occupancy of St. Peter’s chair prevents them from proceeding to the election of a true Pope. What is not easily detected from those viewing these groups from the outside is their remarkable resemblance, in every way, to those who actually opposed the definition of infallibility at the time of the Vatican Council. These opponents of the definition later went into schism to avoid obedience to the Pope, and their behavior and beliefs are nearly identical to those impeding the reign of a true Pope today. Although these so-called Traditionalist leaders have attempted, with great success, to mislead the remnant, the truths of the Faith expose their hidden agenda for what it truly is – treason to Christ and the work of the Devil.
Because Catholics were poorly educated in the truths of the faith long before Vatican II, as were the clergy, the enemy’s triumph in the very midst of what was intended to be the bastion of the Faith is not surprising. For many of these unfortunates, the description of baptized non-Catholics is much more appropriate than the title of Catholic. Victims of the most devious persuasions of the operation of error, they yet have the opportunity to cast themselves upon the Divine Mercy and escape the judgment connected with this deception by embracing the truth. The Pope, as countless Church Fathers and Doctors have unanimously expressed over the ages, is the center of unity and the cause of the Church’s stability. Those sabotaging attempts to secure a true Head for the Church know this quite well, and will do everything in their power, using any and every possible pretext, to prevent the reorganization of the Church. They even attempt to sidestep the most logical of all arguments, first presented by an English convert in the 19th century, concerning the necessity of the papacy.
For as others have effectively argued since, even a wolf pack, a flock of geese and monkey colonies have their appointed leaders, and yet the successor of the first Vicar appointed by the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head. Is there any doubt that if the president of the United States died today, another man would reign in his stead tomorrow? In fact, there are provisions if the President, Vice President and even a dozen others should perish in a common accident. Do not other governmental forms have similar provisions to provide stability of government in case of death or resignation? And haven’t such modes of replacement succeeded, even in times of national crisis and war? Christ Himself, not some national hero or group of Constitutional heroes framed the Church’s constitution to last until the end of the world. The Son of God and his Church have no rights, but secular government has rights superior to God’s? This is what all those who make every possible excuse for why a papal election is inadvisable are really stating. In any other circumstance they would be arrested as enemies of the state. Because they are enemies only of Christ’s Church on earth, they are given free reign.
Two Popes have identified the abomination of desolation as an anti-Pope reigning unopposed by a true Pope. This delusion described by the prophet Daniel is so powerful that it creates its own sort of hypnotic effect on those tainted in any way by its deceptions. To “break the spell,” so to speak, Catholics must re-enter the world of logic and right reason and see these deceits for what they truly are. Fervent prayer to the Holy Ghost followed by an unprejudiced examination of the truth is the only remedy for those who have trustingly followed the purveyors of error all these years. It is by design that the tale of Susannah and the lying elders, also the deceitful priests serving Bel are the last chapters of the Book of Daniel. These chapters illustrate how easily lies can masquerade as truth and prevent even those of good will from believing in God. Following as they do the detailed description of Antichrist and the abomination of desolation, they afford Catholics a birds-eye preview of the inner workings of those opposed to Christ and His plan for the Church.
Following Vatican II, all true Catholics ever really wanted was a return to the Church as She once existed and the security of residing within the walls of the Eternal City, destined to lead souls to Heaven. “Where the Pope is, there is the Church,” and any pretense of earthly existence without the guidance of an infallible head is only a ruse to lead souls to hell. “‘Return to me and I will return to you,’ saith the Lord.” It is that simple. […] Enter then, weary travellers, “for thy redemption is nigh.”
On the Conclave in 2023
by Pope Michael II, in 2023
July 16, 1990 was the day His Holiness Pope Michael got elected as successor to Pius XII after a long interregnum. August 2, 2022 was the day Pope Michael passed away. These two days are significant to us in as much as Pope Michael has left us a legacy that is priceless: courage to move from sedevacantism to conclavism.
The world that we live in now is ego centric. What seems to matter most is pleasure. What is good for the self. What is good for the body. It is no longer surprising if submission and obedience are not popular nower days. Thus, it is one of the reasons sedevacantism is popular among traditionalist. Nobody wants to obey a living and breathing Pope. They are stuck in following the precepts of the past. But remaining sedevacantism is tantamount to unwillingness to die to self. With sedevacantism, lawlessness become the rule of thumb. ”you want it, then, do it.” However, freedom does not mean anarchy.
When July 1990 conclave was held in Delia, Kansas, many personalities were invited to participate. But, only six people manifested their interest. Then, when election of Pope Michael was over, many bashed and criticized him. This was not a surprise since nobody wants to obey an authority. Everybody wants to be ”the boss”. Everyone wants independence from authority especially the Supreme Pontiff. Nonetheless, the conclavist six that July 1990 has chosen the road less traveled.
Thirty three years have passed since Pope MIchael was elected, but the lesson must not be forgotten: Sedevacantism is not good enough.
When His Holiness Pope Michael I of happy memory met his Creator, we were dilapidated by his passing away, but we are grateful to the Lord for giving him to us. Pope Michael has left us a legacy that is priceless. That he led us from mere sedevacantism to conclavism. He did not mind the persecution; what matters is the good of the Church. His reputation was maligned, yet what mattered to him was ”sentire cum ecclesiae” i.e.thinking with the mind of the Church.
Hence, whether one likes it or not, one has to obey out of submission to the will of God. A conclave was a necessity which could not be set aside. And in this period of apostasy, since no appointed Cardinals can gather to elect the new Pope, Canon Law dictates that the Church supplies what is lacking. And so the ball was on the lay people and the clergy to elect a successor to Pope Michael. Oremus ut habeamus Papam.
We were inviting all Catholics to pray that we may have a Pope. A Pope after the heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Pastor Bonus. We prayed to the Holy Spirit that whoever may be elected among the clergy may sanctify, teach and govern after the image of Apostle Peter, not Emperor Constantine.
Service is an offshoot of Charity. It’s a virtue. But Authority is necessary. The Lord Jesus Christ said, ”Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” ( Matthew 28:20 ). We needed a successor to the chair of Peter, the visible sign of unity.
Hence, a conclave opened on July 25, 2023, to choose the successor to Pope Michael of happy memory. A laywoman, Simone Seyringer and family, hosted the conclave. The electors were those who were in communion with Pope Michael. Sedevacantists were not invited as they had been invited before, yet they snubbed that invitation.