Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Ambrose on August 10, 2013, 07:35:44 PM
-
I am moving this thread from the "Who is the Hierarchy" thread, as it deserves individual attention.
Anonymous Guest wrote:
Hi Ambrose,
I will respond regarding John 23 here. First he took the name of the last known anti-pope. You probably know that John was a common name to take for a Pope until anti-pope John 23 took the name in 1410. Until the new [anti] Pope took the same name and number 548 years later. So after anti-Pope John 23 no one dared take the name of the last anti-pope, that is until our John 23.
Why on God's green earth would he take the name of the last anti-Pope?
There is also the controversy surrounding he [election?] and the fact that he was suspected of modernism which is the synthesis of ALL heresies, that he was a free-mason which excommunicates one from the Church and the fact that the free-masons loved him and his encyclical Pacem in Terris.
"Generally speaking, the encyclical Pacem in Terris, addressed to all men of goodwill, has inspired comfort and hope. Both in democratic and Communist countries it has been universally praised. Only the Catholic dictatorships have frowned upon it and distorted its spirit.
"To us many concepts and doctrines it contains are familiar. We have heard them from illustrious rationalist, liberal, and socialist brothers. After having carefully weighed the meaning of each word, we might say that, the proverbial and typical Vatican literary rubbish notwithstanding, the encyclical Pacem in Terris is a vigorous statement of Masonic doctrine... we do not hesitate to recommend its thoughtful reading" (Fr. Joaquin Arriaga, The New Montinian Church, pp. 147-148). [Emphasis in the original]
The accompanying news of the beatification of Pope John XXIII, the Pope of the pastoral Council Vatican II, which worked a real revolution in the largest religious body in the world, rightfully raises concern and questions in the minds of a number of good Catholics.
Let’s put aside the announced miracles and John XXIII’s self-claimed boast of perfect chastity in his autobiography, Diary of a Soul. What raises concern are the politics and actions of Angelo Roncalli, which have often favored the Modernist and progressivist agendas condemned by St. Pius X and other Pontiffs up to and including Pius XII. An accommodating and smiling man, this Pope imprinted this spirit of accommodation onto the Church herself with the much-trumpeted policy of aggiornamento, the adaptation of the Church to the world.
The spirit of accommodation to the world has never been the material for biographies of saints. Far from this! In the lives of the saints, what is normally praised as worthy of admiration and imitation is their distancing themselves from the bad influence of the world.
Therefore, the announcement of the double beatification to be made in Fall of this year was jolting. Even more shocking are attempts to justify John XXIII’s beatification by conservative Catholic journalists, who are trying to present his controversial ideological behavior under the golden light of an indisputable orthodoxy. Since we are dealing with a topic so serious as beatification, it seems quite reasonable to adopt a more suspicious stance and examine the shadows, which are many, that loom over this ever-amiable and smiling Pontiff.
Some facts to be considered
I would like to present some data that normally would be taken into consideration in a fair process of beatification. This contribution is not an attempt to make a definitive judgment on so weighty a matter as who should be raised to the altars in the Holy Catholic Church. It is only to point out some facts that I came across recently in my translation of Volume Four of Atila Sinke Guimarães’ 11-volume Collection on Vatican II. This volume, entitled Animus Delendi - I (Desire to Destroy) examines the planned auto-demolition, or self-destruction of the Church, designed and implemented by progressivists inside the Church.
In the remarkable and numerous footnotes, for which Atila is famous, are interesting facts about John XXIII that merit examination by the Devil’s Advocate. Lest I be accused of impartiality or distorting the facts, I will simply take some excerpts (with the author’s permission) from the docuмentation in the Introduction.
The first is a quote from Silvo Tramontin, a journalist favorable to John XXIII, who attempted to find the “middle road” between the often “teeter-tottering” positions of the Pontiff:
“From time to time, he [John XXIII] has been defined by the progressivists as a standard-bearer, a demi-urge, to which they attribute no only the summoning of the Council, but all the progress made by today’s Church … The progressivists and those who see the person and work of Pope John as ‘progressivist’ can find many signs of such behavior since his youth: his union activity (which is quite significant, given that it took place at a time when Pius X was not favorable toward Christian labor unions); his solidarity with the Ranica strikers; his correspondence with Adelaide Coari, one of the most controversial exponents of Catholic feminism; Cardinal de Lai’s reprimand for the materials he was reading (especially Duchesne’s Storia della Chiesa antica), and a suspicion of Modernism because of his friendship with Buonaiuti.”
Tramontin also dealt with his term as Pope:
“As Pope, he granted an audience to Khruschev’s son-in-law and his wife, an incident that probably gained votes for the Italian Communist Party in the 1963 elections. Above all, he called the Council, which restored a voice to the bishops” (1).
Roncalli’s early contact with Modernists and socialists influenced him strongly toward a different vision of the Church. Archbishop Emeritus of Trent Alessandro Maria Gottardi, a long-standing disciple of John XXIII, reported some of the vanguard actions of the Patriarch of Venice:
“What drove Cardinal Roncalli, as he was at that time, was his desire for the people to be an active part of the Church. This explains his efforts, for example, to facilitate the participation of the faithful in the religious functions at St. Mark’s Basilica. I also remember when a conference of the Italian Socialist Party, dominated by the figure of Pietro Nenni, was held at the Venice Lido in 1956. Roncalli invited all the faithful to give a warm welcome to the socialists. One needs to remember that political divisions were very strong at the time” (2).
Opening doors to Progressivism
It is difficult to deny that John XXIII opened the doors of the Church to the modernist-progressivist movement. Condemned by St. Pius X at the beginning of the century and later by Pius XII during the ’40s, this movement had continued to spread surreptitiously during the period preceding the Council. Alluding to this “opening,” Cardinal Congar stated:
“Pius X was the pope who confronted the Modernist movement, understood as ‘the theoretical and practical subordination of Catholicism to the modern spirit’ …. However, the movement’s studies continued to follow its irreproachable course, both from within and without [the Church], although at times it met with resistance, problems, controls and restraints. Later the situation changed profoundly. There was John XXIII (1958-1963), the Council (1962-1965), aggiornamento…”(3).
Into this “changed situation,” John XXIII rehabilitated various theologians formerly considered suspect by the Holy See or even condemned for heterodoxy. Some of them were exponents of the Nouvelle Théologie (New Theology). Philippe Levillain wrote this about the theological commission that prepared the Council:
“Among the advisors, one noted the presence of Frs. Congar, de Lubac, Hans Küng and others. The whole group of theologians implicitly condemned by the Encyclical Humani Generis in 1950 had been called to Rome at the behest of John XXIII”(4).
The list of the most important exponents of Nouvelle Théologie that became prominent under John XXIII includes Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Küng and Joseph Ratzinger.
Cardinal Congar confirmed the role of John XXIII in appointing progressivists to influential positions for the Council:
“Fr. De Lubac later told me that it was John XXIII himself who had insisted that we both become members of this commission [that prepared the Council]”(5).
Like various other followers of the Nouvelle Théologie, Han Küng was called by none other than John XXIII to be a peritus at Vatican II. It was this action that in effect launched the Swiss German theologian into the great winds of world publicity. After he was chosen, Küng would become one of the great, if not the most symbolic, stars of conciliar thinking. It was John XXIII’s vote of confidence that propelled forward the theological career of the professor of Tübingen. Thus the first fame of Küng is due preponderantly to John XXIII.
More suspicious actions
John XXIII’s opening speech of Vatican II and his intervention during the first session that caused the schema De fontibus Revelationis to be withdrawn from the debates of the Council Assembly contributed powerfully to the predominance of the progressivist current (6).
Likewise, the plan to reformulate Vatican II, as well as the Council’s most progressivist Constitution Gaudium et spes, counted on John XXIII’s personal support. Msgr. Philippe Delhaye attested to this:
“At the end of November 1962, John XXIII asked Cardinals Montini and Suenens to propose a new program involving the study of the relations between the Church and the modern world. After reviewing the plan, the Holy Father approved it and asked the Cardinal of Malines to propose these suggestions to the Assembly. This was done on Monday, December 3. The prelate gave no indication that the initiative came from above, but the authority and precision of the suggestions were such that many suspected what was later confirmed about the papal origin of the plan for the Council and the schema to study the Church and the modern world”(7).
It also befell John XXII to inaugurate a new way of being in the Church when he proposed ridding it of “its imperial mantle.” “Did John XXIII not explicitly propose ridding the Church of ‘its imperial mantle?’” asked Msgr. Ignace Ziade, the Maronite Archbishop of Beirut (8). We also saw the emergence of the egalitarian and de-sacralizing “Church of the poor,” an expression also termed by John XXIII himself in his message of September 11, 1962 (9).
Then perhaps it should come as no surprise to hear Lucio Lombardi of the Italian Communist Party making this eulogy of this Pontiff:
“We finally arrived at the brief but resplendent pontificate of John XXIII. We saw the explosion of a thirst for justice, a craving for liberty, a rejection of the ‘consecration’ of the capitalist regime and the ‘excommunication’ of socialism, and an ardent desire for fraternal dialogue with the ‘infidels’”(10).
Thus, I think it is fair to say that if the traditional criteria and procedure were being followed, many actions of Angelo Roncalli normally would impede his canonization. It seems to me that to canonize John XXIII without disproving these facts implies the automatic “canonization” of the thinking of the New Theology.
An outright lie: A sudden inspiration to convoke a council
Finally, there is ample proof and docuмentation that the decision to convoke the Council was no sudden inspiration of the Holy Ghost as John XXIII has purported in his autobiography, Diary of a Soul.
Fr. Giacomo Martina, S. J., a known scholar in Church History, is one of many who have contradicted this commonly held view. In an interview for 30 Giorni, he said:
“The Pope affirmed in his Diary of a Soul that the decision to convent the Council came from a sudden inspiration on January 20, 1959, during a conversation with the Secretary of State, Cardinal Tardini. But it is historically confirmed, as we have already mentioned, that John XXIII had already been thinking of doing this since November of 1958”(11).
Cardinal Giuseppe Siri also stated definitively that the idea of convening a Council arose during the pontificate of Pius XII:
“The idea came up at that time, but Pius XII never talked to me about it, even though we were very close. I was told that he had said that ‘at least twenty years would be needed to prepare a Council. That’s why I will not call it. My successor will.’ And he was right, because the Council was convened by John XXIII. The one who suggested it to him, or at least reminded him about it, was Cardinal Ruffini on December 16, 1958, two months after his election. The Pope was enthusiastic and agreed …. But the idea of holding a Council was already circulating. Pius XII had set up a small commission to study the proposal quietly. It was an idea that was maturing” (12).
I could continue, quoting yet other docuмents that all lead to the same questions: Why would the Pontiff in his Diary pretend that the calling of the Council was a sudden inspiration, when it is a docuмented fact that it was already an idea long in planning stages? Who and what was this accommodating “interim” Pontiff trying to accommodate? And why?
This dissimulation also raises a doubt. If there is an erroneous dishonesty in one part of his Diary, this clearly indicates that there could be others... The beatification process carried out by Holy Mother Church - like all mothers, always so good, yet always so vigilant - has never relied solely on the words of the candidate alone as proof of holiness. She always wisely and carefully examines the facts and clarifies any doubts. It seems to me the case of Angelo Roncalli bears some truly serious study and explanations to the faithful. Otherwise we could have the “canonization” of the new Modernism - Progressivism.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a006ht.htm
Why would the free-masons love a "Catholic" encyclical?
Then there is the secret of Fatima which he read and ignored and refused to reveal in 1960 against our Lady's wishes.
Why would a Catholic Pope ignore our Lady?
Pope John XXIII Reads the Secret of Fatima and Refuses to Disclose It
We know that the Pope had the envelope of the Third Secret brought to him at Castel Gandolfo on August 17, 1959, by Monsignor Philippe, who was then an official of the Holy Office. Let us notice that this transmission of the Secret to the Sovereign Pontiff thus took on an official character and gathered around it a certain solemnity, which shows the esteem which Fatima was held in that era. Pope John XXIII did not immediately open the envelope. He was content to declare "I am waiting to read it with my confessor." "The reading of the Secret," Monsignor Capovilla stated precisely, "was done a few days later. But because of the difficulty raised by expressions peculiar to the language, assistance was requested of the Portuguese translator of the Secretariat of State, Mgr. Paulo Jose Tavarez," who became afterwards, the Bishop of Macao. Later, Pope John XXIII had it read to Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Holy Office.
Let us open here a brief parenthesis. Certainly we know well that it belongs to the Hierarchy to judge "private revelations". In 1960, it was evident that the Church had already officially recognized the Divine authenticity of the Fatima apparitions, proved, moreover, more solidly than any other by incontestable prophecies and dazzling miracles as Father Gruner has reminded us. In accordance with the command of the Most Blessed Virgin transmitted through Sister Lucy, the two prelates in charge, the Bishop of Leiria and the Patriarch of Lisbon had publicly undertaken to reveal the complete content of it by 1960 at the latest. For more than 15 years, no authoritative declaration had come out to refute these repeated promises echoed throughout the entire world by Cardinals, Bishops and Fatima experts as renowned as Canon Galamba, Canon Barthas or Father Messias Dias Coelho. The disclosure of the first two Secrets in 1942 with the consent of Pope Pius XII constituted moreover a precedent. So that the faithful perfectly had the right to expect from the supreme authority this promised revelation. They had at least a right to an exact and straightforward explanation on the part of the Holy Father.
Alas, on February 8, 1960, it was all of a sudden learned through a simple press release that the Third Secret of Fatima would not be revealed. It was an anonymous decision, which is by its very nature, totally irresponsible. What were the reasons that had motivated it? The Vatican communiqué had offered only inconsistent, and even contradictory excuses. This anonymous press release even ended in treachery: "Although the Church recognizes the Fatima apparitions She does not desire to take the responsibility of guaranteeing the veracity of the words that the three shepherd children said that the Virgin Mary had addressed to them."6 Thus, apparently, the Vatican not only assumed as its own the untenable position of Father Dhanis (the detailed exposé and analysis of this incoherent thesis is in the first volume),7 but this communiqué went even further. It publicly and without any valid reason cast the most ignominious suspicion upon the credibility of Sister Lucy and upon the whole of the Fatima Message!
According to Mgr. Capovilla, several Roman Prelates had been consulted. But what is certain is that the Portuguese authorities in charge were odiously disregarded. Neither Bishop Venancio nor Cardinal Cerejeira had been consulted or notified by Rome.
Upon re-reading and analyzing this lamentable press release of February 8, 1960, or even more by studying the miserable article published in June by Father Caprile in la Civiltà Cattolica, one is disheartened by the massive examples of incoherence, inaccuracies and falsehoods which have been uttered by responsible authorities in Rome itself on the subject of Fatima. This tells you how much the decision to take no notice of the expressed will of the Immaculate Virgin, Queen of the Apostles, demanding that Her Secret be revealed by 1960, was unjustified and unjustifiable. It is certain also, that it did immense harm to the Fatima cause.
One can say that it was from this date after this public disregard for the "Secret of Mary" that devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin began to decrease in a perceptible and then alarming manner in the very bosom of the Catholic Church. More than ever, the words of Sister Lucy applied: "The Blessed Virgin is very sad, for no one pays attention to Her Message." And this fault, one must dare to say it, was going to have incalculable consequences. For in disregarding the prophecies and requests of Fatima, not only was it the Virgin Mary, but God Himself Who had been disregarded, Who had been ridiculed in front of the world. The conditional punishment announced through the maternal warning of the Immaculate One was then going to be carried out tragically, inevitably. http://www.fatima.org/crusader/crthird/sfrpg05.asp
His breaking the unbreakable canon of the Mass and messing with the liturgy also do not help his cause.
These are some of the reasons why I believe it is acceptable and even sensible to doubt the legitimacy of his papacy
First, let me state that the position that I hold about John XXIII is a provisional position. If it can be determined that he was a public heretic, and I have moral certainty of that fact, I will adjust accordingly. In the end, however, my judgment on this point, is my own only, and does not bind anyone else. The question of John XXIII can only be authoritatively be settled by a future Pope.
Now, to your points:
1. Roncalli's choice of his name is not proof of anything. By the way, antipope John XXIII was not the last antipope, that dishonor goes to Felix V. Secondly, are you familiar with Pope Innocent III, who took the same name as antipope Innocent III?
2. I am familiar with the controversy around John XXIII's election, but what has been proven? If Cardinal Siri was elected and became the Pope, he certainly made no claim as such, and if I recall correctly from my reading on this, he explicitly denied it when questioned about it. Secondly, the allegation that he was a mason has never been proven.
3. It is a mystery why John XXIII did not reveal the Third Secret, but are you ready to judge him, without knowing the reason why he did not reveal it? Our Lady also requested the Pope and the bishops to consecrate Russia, yet it was not done by the Pre-Vatican II popes. Do I judge them as negligent? Of course not, I do not have any facts regarding why they did not do this. Perhaps John XXIII acted very imprudently, but that is not proof of heresy.
4. Whether or not the Masons liked John XXIII or his encyclical Pacem in Terris, is not at issue here. The question here is did John XXIII publicly teach heresy in the encyclical or at any other time?
5. If John XXIII was a pope, it is a fact that it would be within his power to make changes to the rite. To prove he was a heretic, it would be necessary to show how those changes were heretical.
-
Sedevacantists have been debating the status of John 23 for some time. Mr. John Lane seems to agree with Ambrose. Others say that he instigated the entire Crisis by calling the Council and making Montini a cardinal.
I tend to agree that John 23 was probably a valid pope though, should public and pertinacious heresy be proven (and, thus far, I, personally, have not seen such evidence) then I would indeed change my view.
However, I generally use the year 1960 as a convenient line of demarcation. I generally trust what was published before 1960 and generally mistrust what was published from 1960 onwards. Even if John 23 was a valid pope, Church discipline began to be made lax during his reign as either pope or anti-pope.
-
From reading about John 23, I see that he was a manifest heretic of great proportions. He wrecked the church, demolished its tradition, paved the way for doctrinal blasphemy, and opened the doors for all the enemies of the church to rise through the ranks of the priesthood and make modernism permanent. He is ultimately the reason why I have spoken to Catholic priests ( one who was in charge of a religious order ) who disagree with virtually everything that the church teaches. He was the lap dog of the freemasons, his vanity was so great that he destroyed the sacred just to make himself remembered as a revolutionary, he was swimming in vice, and most likely died in mortal sin, having been "the Great Destroyer" of the Catholic church.
He was an enemy of the church and nothing more, his actions and words proved this, and the legacy of his papacy was billions abandoning the true faith and going to Hell. No man ever damned as many souls to hell as he did by his example.
-Tcat
-
Yes, he was.
-
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.
-
I am not defending him saying he was good, I am stating that I have never seen an argument which proves that he was a public heretic.
-
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.
He also took the name of Our Lord's most Beloved Disciple and countless other saints. Come on now.
-
If you read the "Pope in Red", you wouldn't think so.
http://www.thepopeinred.com/thesis.htm
The 1958 Conclave door seal was broken and there were many other irregularities. Therefore this conclave was invalid.
Pope John even made the Cardinals come back and stay in conclave a day after the election, threatening anyone who divulged the irregularities would be publicly excommunicated.
-
If you read the "Pope in Red", you wouldn't think so.
http://www.thepopeinred.com/thesis.htm
The 1958 Conclave door seal was broken and there were many other irregularities. Therefore this conclave was invalid.
Pope John even made the Cardinals come back and stay in conclave a day after the election, threatening anyone who divulged the irregularities would be publicly excommunicated.
Yes, there were irregularities. I am not ignorant about this. Despite these irregularities, all of the cardinals, the clergy of Rome, the hierarchy, and all Catholics around the world acknowledged John XXIII as Pope.
The entire Curia began working under John XXIII and every bishop around the world submitted to him. There was a peaceful transition.
There was no dispute in 1959 and Cardinal Siri was not leading any charge stating that he was the pope. There was a universal peaceful acceptance to John XXIII. This is a fact which can be attested to by any living during that time, and in Catholic and in secular publications.
Cardinal Siri went to the next conclave after John XXIII died. Does a pope attend a conclave to vote for a pope?
This acceptance by the cardinals and the clergy of Rome of John XXIII as pope is the acclamation which we can use as certitude that he was indeed the pope.
-
If you read the "Pope in Red", you wouldn't think so.
http://www.thepopeinred.com/thesis.htm
The 1958 Conclave door seal was broken and there were many other irregularities. Therefore this conclave was invalid.
Pope John even made the Cardinals come back and stay in conclave a day after the election, threatening anyone who divulged the irregularities would be publicly excommunicated.
Yes, there were irregularities. I am not ignorant about this. Despite these irregularities, all of the cardinals, the clergy of Rome, the hierarchy, and all Catholics around the world acknowledged John XXIII as Pope.
The entire Curia began working under John XXIII and every bishop around the world submitted to him. There was a peaceful transition.
There was no dispute in 1959 and Cardinal Siri was not leading any charge stating that he was the pope. There was a universal peaceful acceptance to John XXIII. This is a fact which can be attested to by any living during that time, and in Catholic and in secular publications.
Cardinal Siri went to the next conclave after John XXIII died. Does a pope attend a conclave to vote for a pope?
This acceptance by the cardinals and the clergy of Rome of John XXIII as pope is the acclamation which we can use as certitude that he was indeed the pope.
Siri got the Conclave votes, accepted and took the name Gregory XVII, as white smoke billowed over St. Peter's.
If he was intimidated to step down shortly after, it was not a valid resignation under Canon law.
If Roncali was elected under a the broken seal of a conclave door, his election was invalid. He became the de facto, infiltrator pope, who opened
the Church doors wide to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
Siri's behavior after his fratres had sold-out, en masse, doesn't mean he wasn't the Pope de jure.
-
Can you prove any of this with hard evidence?
-
Guest,
I would also ask you to re-read my answer to you. I cannot see how you can get around that. The acceptance by the Cardinals, the clergy of Rome, and the hierarchy cannot be ignored.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04192a.htm)
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.
-
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.
-
I fear if you go with Pope Micheal's theory (http://books.google.com/books?id=CiImBJgYhXUC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=pacem+in+terris+heretical&source=bl&ots=1m1OPTB4DF&sig=sp9wxUdu4DASSyXaj1YFGA4PSos&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OJgLUrKsOPOq4APn6IDYBQ&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=pacem%20in%20terris%20heretical&f=false) on John XXIII :laugh1: —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 (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem_en.html) 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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE2MbPsaZYo
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.
-
Guest wrote:
"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.
-
Guest wrote:
"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.
-
Guest wrote:
"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 Jews are still the chosen people, believed in freedom of religion, taught that protestants were part of the Church.
:smile:
-
I am no expert, but John XXIII is the first of the popes whose orthodoxy I question.
-
Guest wrote:
"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 Jews 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: 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: 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: He stated the Jews 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?
-
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE2MbPsaZYo
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.
-
I am no expert, but John XXIII is the first of the popes whose orthodoxy I question.
:applause:
It's been said that Pope Piux IX made one "off" comment and he spent years living it down.
Pope Leo XIII made have made a blunder in the political realm but that's not theological.
With Pope John XXIII and the conciliar posts, you have to sift through everything they say because at last 20% of what they say is "off" and some of it has you scratching your head saying "Say, that seems pretty close to heretical. Am I seeing what I'm reading?"
-
Even though I do not trust everything the Dimonds and the
Most Holy Family publishes. I believe they are correct on John XXlll
in his scandals and heresies in the following article.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/13_JohnXXIII.pdf
-
Even though I do not trust everything the Dimonds and the
Most Holy Family publishes. I believe they are correct on John XXlll
in his scandals and heresies in the following article.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/13_JohnXXIII.pdf
I would agree with the entire statement above.