Author Topic: John XXIII (Read 3875 times)

Ambrose · « **Reply #15 on:** August 14, 2013, 01:46:52 AM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Ambrose
Can you prove any of this with hard evidence?

Go through the "Pope in Red" website and give me specifics of what you want me to prove.

I would like to see proof of the following:

1. Proof that Cardinal Siri accepted he papacy.
2. If proof can be shown for #1, can it be proven that he did not step down? The Pope is not bound by Canon Law, to resign, he must publicly state his will in the matter. Do you have any evidence which would show exactly what Cardinal Siri stated before the Cardinals?

As an aside, Cardinal Siri's public statements and acts all support the idea that he was not the pope. He went back to his diocese and remained the ordinary. He attended the conclave in 1963. If he ever considered himself pope, what need did he have to attend a conclave? That act alone demonstrates that he did not consider himself Pope from the 1958 conclave.

In the sequence of events of during a conclave, the papal candidate with the most votes is asked if he accepts the office.

It is only after he accepts, does he announce the name he has chosen.

It is widely known and there has been no refutation that Cardinal Siri accepted the name Gregory XVII.

Cardinal Siri's doubts about his papacy would not invalidate his office.

Anecdote:
If you received the Sacrament of Matrimony, walked out of the Church and said I don't think I'm really married because the priest is NO, then you'd be wrong. You could walk off and leave your wife for 40years, but you'd still be married in the Eyes of God.

You did not give me proof my question #1, you merely said it is widely known. I need more than that. I rely on evidence, not hearsay. Is it provable that he accepted the papacy in 1958?

You cannot equate matrimony with the papacy. Marriage cannot be ended except through death, the office of the papacy can be ended by resignation.

I noticed that you did not answer question #2 above. I will state it again:

2. If proof can be shown for #1, can it be proven that he did not step down? The Pope is not bound by Canon Law, to resign, he must publicly state his will in the matter. Do you have any evidence which would show exactly what Cardinal Siri stated before the Cardinals?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #16 on:** August 14, 2013, 01:57:00 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Ambrose
Can you prove any of this with hard evidence?

Go through the "Pope in Red" website and give me specifics of what you want me to prove.

I would like to see proof of the following:

1. Proof that Cardinal Siri accepted he papacy.
2. If proof can be shown for #1, can it be proven that he did not step down? The Pope is not bound by Canon Law, to resign, he must publicly state his will in the matter. Do you have any evidence which would show exactly what Cardinal Siri stated before the Cardinals?

As an aside, Cardinal Siri's public statements and acts all support the idea that he was not the pope. He went back to his diocese and remained the ordinary. He attended the conclave in 1963. If he ever considered himself pope, what need did he have to attend a conclave? That act alone demonstrates that he did not consider himself Pope from the 1958 conclave.

In the sequence of events of during a conclave, the papal candidate with the most votes is asked if he accepts the office.

It is only after he accepts, does he announce the name he has chosen.

It is widely known and there has been no refutation that Cardinal Siri accepted the name Gregory XVII.

Cardinal Siri's doubts about his papacy would not invalidate his office.

Anecdote:
If you received the Sacrament of Matrimony, walked out of the Church and said I don't think I'm really married because the priest is NO, then you'd be wrong. You could walk off and leave your wife for 40years, but you'd still be married in the Eyes of God.

You did not give me proof my question #1, you merely said it is widely known. I need more than that. I rely on evidence, not hearsay. Is it provable that he accepted the papacy in 1958?

You cannot equate matrimony with the papacy. Marriage cannot be ended except through death, the office of the papacy can be ended by resignation.

I noticed that you did not answer question #2 above. I will state it again:

2. If proof can be shown for #1, can it be proven that he did not step down? The Pope is not bound by Canon Law, to resign, he must publicly state his will in the matter. Do you have any evidence which would show exactly what Cardinal Siri stated before the Cardinals?

Ambrose,

Let me turn this debate around for a second.

Tell me, can a freemason be a pope?

Check your sources closely before answering.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #17 on:** August 14, 2013, 02:35:42 AM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Ambrose
Can you prove any of this with hard evidence?

Go through the "Pope in Red" website and give me specifics of what you want me to prove.

I would like to see proof of the following:

1. Proof that Cardinal Siri accepted he papacy.
2. If proof can be shown for #1, can it be proven that he did not step down? The Pope is not bound by Canon Law, to resign, he must publicly state his will in the matter. Do you have any evidence which would show exactly what Cardinal Siri stated before the Cardinals?

As an aside, Cardinal Siri's public statements and acts all support the idea that he was not the pope. He went back to his diocese and remained the ordinary. He attended the conclave in 1963. If he ever considered himself pope, what need did he have to attend a conclave? That act alone demonstrates that he did not consider himself Pope from the 1958 conclave.

In the sequence of events of during a conclave, the papal candidate with the most votes is asked if he accepts the office.

It is only after he accepts, does he announce the name he has chosen.

It is widely known and there has been no refutation that Cardinal Siri accepted the name Gregory XVII.

Cardinal Siri's doubts about his papacy would not invalidate his office.

Anecdote:
If you received the Sacrament of Matrimony, walked out of the Church and said I don't think I'm really married because the priest is NO, then you'd be wrong. You could walk off and leave your wife for 40years, but you'd still be married in the Eyes of God.

Conclave History and traditions

Excerpt:
When a candidate has obtained the required two-thirds vote in a scrutiny or ballot (the choice, since Adrian VI, 1522, falling on one present and invariably on an Italian cardinal), the cardinal dean proceeds to ask him whether he will accept the election and by what name he wishes to be known.

Ambrose · « **Reply #18 on:** August 14, 2013, 02:46:01 AM »

Quote

Tell me, can a freemason be a pope?

Do you have proof that John XXIII was a Freemason? By that I do not mean hearsay or conjecture, I mean real evidence. I have never seen anything which definitively establishes this as fact.

Your question is only relevant if we first establish whether John XXIII was a Freemason.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #19 on:** August 14, 2013, 08:34:22 PM »

I fear if you go with Pope Micheal's theory on John XXIII

—I actually agree with some of it — you end up having to think of ALL the Cardinals who "elected" Roncalli (though that Conclave was weird), and ALL Bishops who stayed in the Church in the 60s (including ABL) after the (now-heretical-seeming) Pacem in Terris was published, were laicized by canon law in the early 60s. Leaving nobody. And I'm just not seeing that.

Anti-pope Honorius was "revealed" many decades after his death, but were the other popes after he died, before he was anathematized, anti-popes who should have been anathematized with Honorius? Or the people who worked with Honorius I? Were the post-Honorius popes really just innocuous popes who didn't touch on his heresy? IDK (there's too little material on it), but only one excommunication (John XXIII) wouldn't seem to do the job now. John 23 was a buffoon, his writings Masonic and thus heretical, but his successors were the ones who took a sledgehammer to the facades of the Church.

All I know is, the office was supposed to give Roncalli the fullness of the Scared Magesteruim, and THAT'S what I'm not seeing. The blessings of the office "didn't take". It's hard to look at PIT (Pacem in Terris) and think John 23, who wrote it coming off two world wars, communism threatening a third world war, and the third secret of Fatima fresh in that pope's mind, and imagine that he had received any part of the Sacred Magesterium. End of story, for me.

Anyway, if there were such "proofs" (Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, heresy) against John 23, I think the proofs were suppressed "to protect the Church"; we might not ever know until the afterlife. Leaving us in the unfortunate position of deciding for ourselves if Pacem in Terris and later heretical docuмents and encyclicals were scribed by a Pope, or by a poser anti-pope. I lean to the 'anti-pope' side, but unlike 'Pope' Micheal, I give some of the V2 fathers credit for hanging in there and fighting Modernism.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #20 on:** August 15, 2013, 11:39:58 AM »

Quote from: Guest

http://www.huttongibson.com/PDFs/hutton_johnxxiii_book.pdf

When the subject of John XXIII comes, we need to reeducate
ourselves on Father Doctor Luigi Villa reliable research that have
never been challenged, nor denied by the Vatican.

When a Cardinal is elected Pope and takes the name of an previous
anti-pope, that should send a message that his election is bad news
for the Church.

Why quote Hutton Gibson when you could quote the direct source!? Hutton Gibson is a detractor, and a calumniator.

There's enough about John 23 said in here.

http://chiesaviva.com/donluigivilla%20ing.pdf

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #21 on:** August 15, 2013, 01:06:17 PM »

John XXIII launched the Second Vatican Council and rehabilitated and appointed as peritus theologians who were at the very least suspect of heresy.

John XXIII made Montini a cardinal.

John XXIII broke the canon.

Now, 50 years after the council, the post-council church is different in almost every facet from the pre-council church.

You Be The Judge!

How obvious does God have to make it before people can put two and two together?

Ambrose · « **Reply #22 on:** August 15, 2013, 01:26:25 PM »

Quote from: Guest

John XXIII launched the Second Vatican Council and rehabilitated and appointed as peritus theologians who were at the very least suspect of heresy.

John XXIII made Montini a cardinal.

John XXIII broke the canon.

Now, 50 years after the council, the post-council church is different in almost every facet from the pre-council church.

You Be The Judge!

How obvious does God have to make it before people can put two and two together?

Agreed on all points! The point of this thread was to put out the question of whether John XXIII professed heresy publicly.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #23 on:** August 15, 2013, 01:46:01 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote
Tell me, can a freemason be a pope?

Do you have proof that John XXIII was a Freemason? By that I do not mean hearsay or conjecture, I mean real evidence. I have never seen anything which definitively establishes this as fact.

Your question is only relevant if we first establish whether John XXIII was a Freemason.

Ambrose,

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Much evidence has come to light in recent years on Roncalli's freemasonic past.

Lodge photo:
http://www.thepopeinred.com/masonic-anti-pope-john-xxiii.jpg

"Cardinal" Angelo Roncalli A.K.A Antpope John XXIII, was a Docuмented Freemason (Angelo Roncalli [with hand on right knee] seated next to his "confidant," Edouard Herriot, Secretary of the Radical Socialists
whom he (Roncalli) hosted, along with other officials of the Masonic "Fourth Republic" of France, in 1953)

Also, check out this link:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there have been more Papal Encyclicals on the evils of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ than any other Papal teaching.

Also, since there is compelling evidence that Roncalli was a lodge member, he would have to have renounced Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, before he became Pope.

I'm not aware of any evidence that he did this?

So if he did not renounce, he became a "de facto" pope.
That is, he physically held the Seat, but was not the de jure (legal) pope.

Of course, this is all very troublesome news.

I believe 500 years ago, Our Lady of Good Success, of Ecuador predicted this would happen.

Also, St. Francis of Assisi warned his fratres of a future, non canonically elected pope on his deathbed. The oldest source I has on this goes back to a book from the 1800s.

Ambrose · « **Reply #24 on:** August 15, 2013, 02:01:16 PM »

Guest wrote:

Quote

"Cardinal" Angelo Roncalli A.K.A Antpope John XXIII, was a Docuмented Freemason (Angelo Roncalli [with hand on right knee] seated next to his "confidant," Edouard Herriot, Secretary of the Radical Socialists
whom he (Roncalli) hosted, along with other officials of the Masonic "Fourth Republic" of France, in 1953)

If that is enough to convince you that he was a mason, we should leave this discussion here. I require a much higher standard before believing someone is guilty of a horrible crime.

I have read the publicly available evidence that John XXIII was a mason, and as of yet, none of it makes a definitive case. Maybe there is evidence that has not yet come out yet, and that may change my mind on this, but as of yet, I remain unconvinced.

As I said previously, hearsay and conjecture are inadequate as evidence.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #25 on:** August 15, 2013, 03:00:27 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Guest wrote:

Quote
"Cardinal" Angelo Roncalli A.K.A Antpope John XXIII, was a Docuмented Freemason (Angelo Roncalli [with hand on right knee] seated next to his "confidant," Edouard Herriot, Secretary of the Radical Socialists
whom he (Roncalli) hosted, along with other officials of the Masonic "Fourth Republic" of France, in 1953)

If that is enough to convince you that he was a mason, we should leave this discussion here. I require a much higher standard before believing someone is guilty of a horrible crime.

I have read the publicly available evidence that John XXIII was a mason, and as of yet, none of it makes a definitive case. Maybe there is evidence that has not yet come out yet, and that may change my mind on this, but as of yet, I remain unconvinced.

As I said previously, hearsay and conjecture are inadequate as evidence.

The freemasons are a secret society and if Roncalli was "their man" then letting the evidence of his membership be known would actually harm their cause.

If it was proven that Roncalli was a Mason, then proceedings could be done to declare him legally an anti-pope and this may set the conciliarists back.

But, now that I think about it, the world has become even more spiritually dark (or maybe it's just because a light has departed) and most novus ordites and their leaders would view the masons as just a club similar to the Knights of Columbus.

John XXIII may not have been an ipso facto mason but he was the handmaiden of the masons and now we have the exact same end result as if a bona fide mason pope was in charge.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #26 on:** August 15, 2013, 05:12:21 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Guest wrote:

Quote
"Cardinal" Angelo Roncalli A.K.A Antpope John XXIII, was a Docuмented Freemason (Angelo Roncalli [with hand on right knee] seated next to his "confidant," Edouard Herriot, Secretary of the Radical Socialists
whom he (Roncalli) hosted, along with other officials of the Masonic "Fourth Republic" of France, in 1953)

If that is enough to convince you that he was a mason, we should leave this discussion here. I require a much higher standard before believing someone is guilty of a horrible crime.

I have read the publicly available evidence that John XXIII was a mason, and as of yet, none of it makes a definitive case. Maybe there is evidence that has not yet come out yet, and that may change my mind on this, but as of yet, I remain unconvinced.

As I said previously, hearsay and conjecture are inadequate as evidence.

You're so hard to convince: :rolleyes:

Okay, here's a case for the "de facto" pope John XXIII's heretical papacy:

1. Clerical track record:

The man who decided to call the Vatican II council was born in 1881, and for years the Holy Office maintained a dossier on Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) which read "suspected of Modernism [ which, incidentally had been declared as heresy by Pope Pius X, years before, in his encyclical, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (On Modernism)].

2. Member of freemasonic order:
Angelo Roncalli in Turkey, c. 1935, during his nunciature, incurred ipso facto ( automatic excommunication) when he joined the Freemasons]

See photo:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_O6ILdsGzp0c/SGm-6HhFAfI/AAAAAAAAANI/EdHUpQh9eLk/s1600/john-23-mason.jpg

3. John XXIII's quote:
"Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the sames faith...Later on, though travelling along different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of Jesus Christ." [When A Pope Asks For Forgiveness, Luigi Accattoli,1998, p. 18-19]

-HERESY.[Here John XXIII denies that the Catholic Church has been established by Jesus Christ!]

4. Claimed to be a Freemason

The head of the Italian Freemasons, the Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy stated: "As for that, it seems that John XXIII was initiated (into a Masonic Lodge) in Paris and participated in the work of the Istanbul Workshops." [His Freemasonic code name was ROAN]

Note:
Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ was condemned by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Humanus Genus, April, 20, 1884.

5. Doctrinal errors

John XXIII denied the teaching that 'Outside the Catholic Church there is no Salvation' - While in Turkey, stated: " You Irish are impossible. The moment you come into the world, ...you begin by damning everybody who doesn't belong to the Church, especially Protestants!"

6. Others:
He stated the Jєωs are still the chosen people, believed in freedom of religion, taught that protestants were part of the Church.

:smile:

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #27 on:** August 15, 2013, 05:19:09 PM »

I am no expert, but John XXIII is the first of the popes whose orthodoxy I question.

Ambrose · « **Reply #28 on:** August 15, 2013, 11:36:57 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Ambrose
Guest wrote:

Quote
"Cardinal" Angelo Roncalli A.K.A Antpope John XXIII, was a Docuмented Freemason (Angelo Roncalli [with hand on right knee] seated next to his "confidant," Edouard Herriot, Secretary of the Radical Socialists
whom he (Roncalli) hosted, along with other officials of the Masonic "Fourth Republic" of France, in 1953)

If that is enough to convince you that he was a mason, we should leave this discussion here. I require a much higher standard before believing someone is guilty of a horrible crime.

I have read the publicly available evidence that John XXIII was a mason, and as of yet, none of it makes a definitive case. Maybe there is evidence that has not yet come out yet, and that may change my mind on this, but as of yet, I remain unconvinced.

As I said previously, hearsay and conjecture are inadequate as evidence.

You're so hard to convince: :rolleyes:

Okay, here's a case for the "de facto" pope John XXIII's heretical papacy:

1. Clerical track record:

The man who decided to call the Vatican II council was born in 1881, and for years the Holy Office maintained a dossier on Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) which read "suspected of Modernism [ which, incidentally had been declared as heresy by Pope Pius X, years before, in his encyclical, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (On Modernism)].

2. Member of freemasonic order:
Angelo Roncalli in Turkey, c. 1935, during his nunciature, incurred ipso facto ( automatic excommunication) when he joined the Freemasons]

See photo:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_O6ILdsGzp0c/SGm-6HhFAfI/AAAAAAAAANI/EdHUpQh9eLk/s1600/john-23-mason.jpg

3. John XXIII's quote:
"Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the sames faith...Later on, though travelling along different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of Jesus Christ." [When A Pope Asks For Forgiveness, Luigi Accattoli,1998, p. 18-19]

-HERESY.[Here John XXIII denies that the Catholic Church has been established by Jesus Christ!]

4. Claimed to be a Freemason

The head of the Italian Freemasons, the Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy stated: "As for that, it seems that John XXIII was initiated (into a Masonic Lodge) in Paris and participated in the work of the Istanbul Workshops." [His Freemasonic code name was ROAN]

Note:
Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ was condemned by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Humanus Genus, April, 20, 1884.

5. Doctrinal errors

John XXIII denied the teaching that 'Outside the Catholic Church there is no Salvation' - While in Turkey, stated: " You Irish are impossible. The moment you come into the world, ...you begin by damning everybody who doesn't belong to the Church, especially Protestants!"

6. Others:
He stated the Jєωs are still the chosen people, believed in freedom of religion, taught that protestants were part of the Church.

:smile:

1. How do you know about this file bearing the title, "suspected of modernism?" What source do you have and how do they know this?

2. I was not able to bring up the picture you linked for me. How does the photo you are using as evidence incriminate John XXIII as a Freemason? Do you have a picture of him being initiated or participating in a Freemason ritual or meeting?

3. I would like to see the quote for myself, I plan on ordering the book.

4. What source do you have for this:

Quote

The head of the Italian Freemasons, the Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy stated: "As for that, it seems that John XXIII was initiated (into a Masonic Lodge) in Paris and participated in the work of the Istanbul Workshops." [His Freemasonic code name was ROAN]

.

Who was this man, who quoted him, and why do I need to believe him? Did he make this statement under oath? Did he have any corroborating evidence to back up his claim?

You don't need to cite Pope Leo XIII's teaching on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ for me, I am we'll aware of it. This teaching should make any Catholic approach this with caution, as the accusation that John XXIII was a Freemason is no light matter, it is a grave sin against God and a crime against His Church.

5. Do you have the source for the quote you gave:

Quote

John XXIII denied the teaching that 'Outside the Catholic Church there is no Salvation' - While in Turkey, stated: " You Irish are impossible. The moment you come into the world, ...you begin by damning everybody who doesn't belong to the Church, especially Protestants!"

. I would like to read the whole quote from the book it was originally published from.

6. You wrote:

Quote

He stated the Jєωs are still the chosen people, believed in freedom of religion, taught that protestants were part of the Church.

What source do you have for each of these accusations? What were his exact words?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #29 on:** August 16, 2013, 12:23:38 AM »

Ambrose,

Thank you for all your questions.

I don't have time to specifically answer them, but please allow me to suggest a link, with more charges and better details:

Father Roncalli had been mentored by the remnant of Cardinal Rampolla's protégés after the election of St. Pope Pius X.

As you probably know, Rampolla was a covert freemason who had gone so far as the become Pope Leo's XIII's Secretary of State.

In 1903, the Church came inches away from electing, the freemason Rampolla, as Pope.

By providence, the Emperor of Austria saved the day by exercising an ancient privilege extended to his line by a previous Pope and blocked Rampolla's election.

As the story goes, Rampolla died a year later and in his apartment was found
articles of freemasonic occultism.

St. Pope Pius X had everything burned and is said to have broken down and cried all day, knowing Rampolla had become eternal toast.

By 1958, Catholics had allowed themselves to become so spiritually weak, there were no more providential intercessors to help us.

The spiritual son of Cardinal Rampolla had entered the Vatican and opened it's doors to the enemies of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

I hope this helps to answer at least some of your questions.

Author Topic: John XXIII (Read 3875 times)

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus