Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Ladislaus on August 05, 2020, 10:43:46 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyxIlmC6Ntw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyxIlmC6Ntw)
-
I don’t have any problem accepting the possibility that Siri was elected, but declined.
I’m not sure I even have a problem accepting the possibility that he was elected, wanted to accept (or did in fact accept), but was intimidated/coerced into relinquishing the papacy. I would need to think a bit more about it.
But I might have difficulty accepting that Siri remained traditional, and reject flatly that he remained pope (if in fact he was elected and accepted), since he accepted the conciliar popes.
-
(http://www.thepopeinred.com/1958-conclave-white-smoke.jpg)
I mean you gotta admit. The 1958 conclave was pretty shady.
-
(http://www.thepopeinred.com/1958-conclave-white-smoke.jpg)
I mean you gotta admit. The 1958 conclave was pretty shady.
Yes, it absolutely was ... in many ways.
Something very bad happened there. Cardinal Siri himself in an interview a little before his death conceded (paraphrased from memory) that "very serious things happened in the conclaves. I could fill books about them. But I am bound by the secret."
-
I don’t have any problem accepting the possibility that Siri was elected, but declined.
I’m not sure I even have a problem accepting the possibility that he was elected, wanted to accept (or did in fact accept), but was intimidated/coerced into relinquishing the papacy. I would need to think a bit more about it.
But I might have difficulty accepting that Siri remained traditional, and reject flatly that he remained pope (if in fact he was elected and accepted), since he accepted the conciliar popes.
For what it’s worth, this is my position as well, with regard to Cardinal Siri.
-
For what it’s worth, this is my position as well, with regard to Cardinal Siri.
Regardless of whether people believe he REMAINED Pope (I believe he did), the fact remains that it would have invalidated some of the subsequent elections.
-
Regardless of whether people believe he REMAINED Pope (I believe he did), the fact remains that it would have invalidated some of the subsequent elections.
.
In Bellarmine's account of the Pope Liberius/Pope Felix affair, he maintains that Felix became pope once the Roman clergy accepted him-- this, despite the fact that Liberius was still living and was duly elected.
.
If we are to regard that as an accurate account, then the mere fact of Siri's papacy would not in fact be an impediment to subsequent elections. There are other reasons, of course. But I am not sure the one you bring up is good enough, despite its intuitive appeal.
-
If we are to regard that as an accurate account, then the mere fact of Siri's papacy would not in fact be an impediment to subsequent elections. There are other reasons, of course. But I am not sure the one you bring up is good enough, despite its intuitive appeal.
"I do not believe some things should be discussed publicly. I have lived a very long life, and I have known men... and traitors. But I have never revealed the names of the traitors. I do not perform the work of the executioner. I know, however, how much it costs to speak the truth. They have not succeeded in making me ill, but they have succeeded in making me sad and depressed. But Jeremiah had enough lamentations; there's no need for me to add to them." - Cardinal Siri (January 17th, 1985)
(http://www.thepopeinred.com/papa-xii-gregory-xvii-1958.jpg)
-
… you gotta admit. The 1958 conclave was pretty shady.
You don't have to admit any such thing. As a conclave is sealed, anyone not present who claims to know something of its deliberations is either a fantasist or, what is more likely, a liar. Even less regard should be accorded someone who was present at a conclave and subsequently speaks of its proceedings. Such a man has committed a sin so grave that its forgiveness is reserved to the pope. The credibility of the sort of man who would wittingly place himself at risk to such a terrifying degree is fatally compromised.
What is more, it demeans the practice of our Faith to associate it with melodramatic rumor mongering.
-
You don't have to admit any such thing. As a conclave is sealed, anyone not present who claims to know something of its deliberations is either a fantasist or, what is more likely, a liar. Even less regard should be accorded someone who was present at a conclave and subsequently speaks of its proceedings. Such a man has committed a sin so grave that its forgiveness is reserved to the pope. The credibility of the sort of man who would wittingly place himself at risk to such a terrifying degree is fatally compromised.
.
Can't believe I'm going to defend the Siri position, but for a proportionately grave reason someone could break the oath of the conclave. It's not like the seal of confession, which admits no exception. It's an oath of secrecy, and no oath binds when adherence to it creates a proportionately grave harm to the common good. In this case the harm to the common good would be to have the whole adherence of the Church to a false pope, not to speak of universal apostasy and corruption of (apparently) the entire hierarchy either by heresy directly embraced or by silence in the face of heresy.
.
Incidentally, the fact that Cardinal Siri refused to speak of the conclave in the face of what happened since 1958 is a strong argument, in my mind, that he wasn't elected pope. If he had been pope and had seen the universal destruction caused by John XXIII and more so by Paul VI, I'm sure he would have come out at some point and said he was elected pope. (People stretch some words of his later in life to try to claim he did admit he was elected, but this is only by basically re-writing what he said from scratch.)
.
Cardinal Siri could have walked right out of that conclave in October of 1958 and gone straight to the nearest reporter and said, "All these cardinals are lying. I was elected pope, and I am the true pope." His face would have been on every television set on this planet before the sun went down that same day. He also had another 20-30 years after that day to do that and never did. If he had been αssαssιnαtҽd upon doing this, he would have gone straight to heaven as a martyr, and he would obviously have been completely aware of that too.
.
To answer Bp. Williamson's question, is it possible that Cardinal Siri became pope? Sure, almost everything is possible. It's also possible Paul VI was replaced by an imposter. But it's not likely. Basically anything is possible.
-
.
Can't believe I'm going to defend the Siri position, but for a proportionately grave reason someone could break the oath of the conclave. It's not like the seal of confession, which admits no exception. It's an oath of secrecy, and no oath binds when adherence to it creates a proportionately grave harm to the common good. In this case the harm to the common good would be to have the whole adherence of the Church to a false pope, not to speak of universal apostasy and corruption of (apparently) the entire hierarchy either by heresy directly embraced or by silence in the face of heresy.
.
Incidentally, the fact that Cardinal Siri refused to speak of the conclave in the face of what happened since 1958 is a strong argument, in my mind, that he wasn't elected pope. If he had been pope and had seen the universal destruction caused by John XXIII and more so by Paul VI, I'm sure he would have come out at some point and said he was elected pope. (People stretch some words of his later in life to try to claim he did admit he was elected, but this is only by basically re-writing what he said from scratch.)
.
Cardinal Siri could have walked right out of that conclave in October of 1958 and gone straight to the nearest reporter and said, "All these cardinals are lying. I was elected pope, and I am the true pope." His face would have been on every television set on this planet before the sun went down that same day. He also had another 20-30 years after that day to do that and never did. If he had been αssαssιnαtҽd upon doing this, he would have gone straight to heaven as a martyr, and he would obviously have been completely aware of that too.
.
To answer Bp. Williamson's question, is it possible that Cardinal Siri became pope? Sure, almost everything is possible. It's also possible Paul VI was replaced by an imposter. But it's not likely. Basically anything is possible.
Well, “Once more into the breech, dear friends:”
Claudel surely elucidates the general principle perfectly, and Yeti nails the exception.
My only comment is that, supposing Siri was elected, and accepted, then was forced out, it does not follow that it was necessary to violate the Secret in order to procure the common good, because otherwise the whole Church would be following a false pope (though it might be necessary to break the secret for other reasons, such as a cabal of OTO Masons using the Church’s processes to install their own upon the throne):
If Billot (representing the most common opinion) is correct, then it matters not what intrigues May have forced Siri out: The moment the usurper was accepted as pope by the whole Church, any defect in his legitimacy is “healed in the root,” and his legitimacy is certain (at least insofar as intrigues in the conclave are concerned, that is).
-
If Billot (representing the most common opinion) is correct, then it matters not what intrigues May have forced Siri out: The moment the usurper was accepted as pope by the whole Church, any defect in his legitimacy is “healed in the root,” and his legitimacy is certain (at least insofar as intrigues in the conclave are concerned, that is).
.
This would seem to follow. This is why the whole Siri Question is an insoluble problem. :confused:
-
Can't believe I'm going to defend the Siri position, but for a proportionately grave reason someone could break the oath of the conclave. It's not like the seal of confession, which admits no exception. It's an oath of secrecy, and no oath binds when adherence to it creates a proportionately grave harm to the common good.
The air of plausibility in the sentences above survives close examination for about ten seconds. Then the realization strikes that the situation outlined has "made in Hollywood" stamped all over it.
Let's consider for a moment the possibility that, without anyone's prior knowledge, a certain criminal faction in a conclave tries to impose its will upon the rest of those assembled. What then? A reasonable counterquery would be that if something abusive to the Faith were actually to occur during a conclave, what is there to prevent five, ten, or twenty cardinals from abandoning the conclave en masse and thus bring it abruptly to a close? Or would they be locked in by a hundred heavily armed commandos who used stealth technology to parachute in unseen?
From what I have seen over the course of a long life, the one thing the members of the College of Cardinals cannot be accused of is lack of awareness of the unscrupulousness of their fellow prelates. I would not wager even a dollar that anyone present at a conclave would be surprised at anything said or done during its course. Put otherwise, it makes far more sense to conclude that few, if any, present in 1958 were unaware of the candidates with the likeliest electoral prospects and that only the same negligible few were unaware of the numerous pressures, licit or otherwise, that could be brought to bear—and doubtless were—on each of the candidates.
The crisis in the Church has less to do with "stolen" papal elections than with unstolen papal elections that reified the will of two-thirds of the cardinals present and voting. Those elections installed Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Frankenpope.
As to the relative importance of the oath of secrecy, tell me this: for how many other sins is absolution reserved to the pope?
-
Gary Giuffre's website has been taken down, but I found this here:
https://catholicmap.blogspot.com/2016/06/comments-by-gary-giuffre-on-eclipsing.html
Regarding the timing of the “Eclipse of the Church,” foretold by Our Lady of La Salette:
It can be determined by Associated Press (AP) wire photos published by Joseph Breig, and newspapers all over the world, what was the exact timing of the key events with which we are particularly concerned:
Photo (see below) portrayed the first clouds of white smoke that billowed out of the Sistine Chapel stovepipe and would continue uninterrupted for five minutes.
During this interval, Vatican Radio repeatedly announced to the world that the election of a Pope had taken place. News reports confirmed that the smoke was first seen at approximately 5.55 P.M., from which it can be deduced that the election occurred shortly before that time. Then, photo #2 shows the first puff of black smoke, after white smoke had poured out of the stovepipe for five full minutes, clearly indicating that some anomaly had occurred inside the conclave. The second photo also captured an image of the clock over the Pauline Chapel on the façade of St. Peter’s Basilica, which can be seen with its hands at 6 o’clock.
The fact that the new Pope did not emerge onto the balcony that night, with no official explanation ever emanating from the Vatican why there were voluminous clouds of white smoke billowing out of the Sistine Chapel stovepipe, without interruption, and for so long a time, gives compelling evidence that something most serious must have gone wrong inside the conclave.
It seems necessary at this point to make note of some important principles, some examples of primary evidence, some background, and some testimonies of several people closer to the events of 1958, almost all of which were brought together for the first time in one place in articles published by Gary Giuffré circa 1988-1990 through a small circulation newsletter.
Here are passages from two large circulation newspapers, the [London] Tablet and the Houston Post, regarding the white smoke beginning at 5:55 PM during the conclave on October 26, 1958:
“Too few people realize how easy it is to get the Vatican Radio on the medium waveband (196.2 meters) on any average wireless set in this country. It used not to be so, but so it has been for a year now, since the late Pope inaugurated the powerful new transmitters at Santa Maria di Galeria, and nothing was easier last Sunday than to sit in London listening to the excited uncertainty of the announcer about the colour of the smoke. At five o’clock by our time – six o’clock in Rome – he suddenly said, ‘The smoke is white . . . there is absolutely no doubt. A Pope has been elected. Habemus papam.’ But then the smoke seemed to turn black, and he said that perhaps one ought to wait for confirmation of the news; then it was plainly white again, a great cry of ‘Evviva il Papa’ arose from the crowd in the Piazza, and the announcer threw caution to the winds; the white smoke, he said, had been too much, and too steady, to leave room for doubt. Then caution crept back again and he said that only when the lights went on in the Hall of Benedictions could they feel certain that a Pope had been elected. But, he insisted, the slightly dusky colour of the white smoke could only be due to a technical difficulty of some sort; it was too abundant, there was too much of it, for anyone to think otherwise. Yet the minutes ticked on and no lights appeared; it was twenty past five before the announcer really began to think that a mistake must have been made after all.” ("The Vatican Radio", The [London] Tablet, 1 November 1958, emphasis added)
Here is a second newspaper account with some phrases again underlined for emphasis; it covers the initial minutes following the heavy, white smoke that had started coming out from 5:55 PM and continued for another 5 minutes, suggesting to all those present, and everyone around the world who was listening to the radio, that the signal meant what it had always meant -- that a new Pope had been elected:
“VATCAN CITY (AP) - Cardinals balloted Sunday without electing a pope. A mix up in smoke signals made it appear for about half an hour that Pius XII’s successor had been chosen. For a time, 200,000 Romans and tourists in huge Saint Peter’s Square were certain the church had a new pontiff. Millions of others who listened to radios throughout Italy and Europe also were certain. They heard the Vatican radio speaker shout exultantly, ‘A pope is elected.’
“The scene around the Vatican was one of incredible confusion. White smoke from a little chimney atop the Vatican is the traditional signal announcing the election of a new pope. Black smoke indicates failure. Twice during the day smoke billowed from the chimney. At noon the smoke at first came white but it quickly turned unquestionably black. This was the sign the Cardinals had failed to elect a pope on the first two ballots. At nightfall white smoke billowed from the slender chimney for a full five minutes. For all the outside world knew, a new pontiff had been chosen.
“Clouds of smoke were caught in searchlights trained on the Sistine Chapel chimney. ‘Bianco! Bianco!’ roared many in the crowd. ‘White, white.’
“The Vatican Radio announced the smoke was white. The announcer declared the Cardinals at that moment probably were going through the rites of adoration for a new supreme pontiff. For a long time Vatican Radio stuck to its insistence the smoke was white.
“Even high Vatican officials were fooled. Callori di Vignale, governor of the conclave, and Sigismondo Chigi, the conclave marshal, rushed to take up the positions assigned to them. The Palatine Guard was called from its barracks and ordered to prepare to go to St. Peter’s Basilica for [the] announcement of the new Pope’s name. But the guard was ordered back to barracks before it reached the square. The Swiss Guard was also alerted.
“Chigi, in an interview with the Italian radio, said uncertainty reigned in the palace. He added that this confusion persisted even after the smoke had subsided and until assurances were received from within the conclave that black smoke was intended. He said he had been at three other conclaves and never before seen smoke as varied in color as Sunday’s. He told newsmen later he would arrange to have the Cardinals informed of Sunday's smoke confusion in the hope that something can be done to remedy the situation Monday.
“Priests and others working within the Vatican grounds saw the white smoke. They started to cheer. They waved kerchiefs enthusiastically, and figures of conclavists – cardinals’ assistants - in the windows of the apostolic palace waved back.Possibly they too believed a pope had been elected.
website publisher returns to comment: some of these phrases appear to have been added later that evening by the AP reporter or editor in an attempt to try and make sense out of the emerging cover story. For instance, in the paragraph immediately preceding this comment, the word 'possibly' in the last sentence makes no sense. The "priests and others working within the Vatican grounds" who "saw the white smoke" were cheering, obviously, because they concluded the steady, white smoke meant the new pope was elected. Those "waving kerchiefs enthusiastically" would not be energized, except for the same reason. The "figures of conclavists -- cardinals' assistants - in the windows of the apostolic palace" who "waved back" would have known that they were forbidden to have any contact with the outside world or even to signal those outside the conclave under pain of excommunication until the conclave had concluded with the election of a new Pope.] Let's continue with this Houston Post article:
“The crowd waited in an agony of suspense. Any pope elected would ordinarily appear on the balcony within twenty minutes. The crowd waited a full half-hour now wondering whether the smoke was meant to be black or white. Doubt set in swiftly. Many in the vast crowd began to drift away. But still there was confusion. News media had flashed around the world the word that a new pope had been chosen.
“Telephone calls poured into the Vatican, jamming its exchange. As time wore on and doubts increased, the callers all asked one question: “Black or white?”
“After a half hour, radios began to clatter excitedly that the answer was still uncertain. Only well after the time when a new pope should have appeared on the balcony above St. Peter’s Square was it certain that the voting would have to resume Monday at 10 a.m. (3 a.m. CST). The crowd now aware of this, dissipated quickly. Grayish wisps of smoke still spiraled from the chapel chimney . . .” (“Cardinals Fail To Elect Pope In 4 Ballots; Mix up In Smoke Signals Causes 2 False Reports,” The Houston Post, October 27, 1958, Section 1, pages 1 & 7.)
COMMENT: Notice above that Sigismondo Chigi, the conclave marshal, gave a press interview after the excitement caused by the white smoke of 5:55 PM on October 26, 1958 was over. Chigi related that the smoke varied in color more than he had ever seen in the three conclaves at which he had been present (presumably the 1922 conclave which elected Pope Pius XI, the 1939 conclave which elected Pope Pius XII, and this 1958 conclave).
* * * * * * *
One may wonder what was made of all this white smoke and how much, if at all, did these developments perplex and disturb the Italian faithful? For instance, a number of people have anecdotally told Mr. Giuffre, the author of this article, as well as others who are supporters of this investigation, that the "word on the street" after Roncalli emerged as John XXIII was that "they switched popes on us." In fact, a veteran Italian news reporter adds her considerable credibility to this popular perception.
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. Conclave ministers had already begun to burn the ballots with dry straw in the Sistine Chapel stove, sending up white smoke to announce the election of the Pope. Even as the thunderous cheers of the crowd outside could be heard by those inside the conclave, a group of cardinals in league with Tisserant commanded the ministers to change the mixture in the stove to wet straw in order to produce black smoke. When the conclave officials refused the order to send out a false signal that would indicate no electoral results, a group of Cardinals brushed the monsignors aside and began to dump wet straw into the stove. Thereafter, a “shoving match” ensued over control of the stove, and the alternating mixtures of dry and wet straw that were being put into it, caused the smoke to vary from white, to black, to white again, and finally to gray, he said.
* * * * * * *
It might be of interest that Fr. Charles-Roux first came to the attention of those spearheading this investigation when Mrs. Deidre Manifold, author of Fatima and the Great Conspiracy and other books, mentioned to this webmaster that a certain priest would be able to relate what had happened within the 1958 conclave. Mrs. Manifold asserted that he was Fr. Charles-Roux, and that he was actually inside the conclave. (This conversation took place in the early 1990s during the Saturday evening dinner at a weekend conference organized by Holy Family Monastery in Berlin, New Jersey; Deidre. Manifold was an invited speaker, and had traveled all the way from Ireland for the occasion.) However, while granting interviews about this subject on several occasions, Fr. Charles-Roux has never confirmed to date that he was, indeed, inside that conclave.
* * * * * * *
Both the late Prince Paul Scortesco and the late Malachi Martin have stated in writing that outside communications entered the the 1963 conclave. Martin writes of the "little brutality" of 1963, leaving some close to this investigation wondering if Malachi had remained silent on the unmentioned "big brutality" of 1958, the year which marked the cataclysmic turning point for the Church.
Scortesco's assertions were published in the French periodical Introibo, No. 61, 1988. The Introibo article was based on letters Scortesco had written in 1976. These 1976 letters were in turn based on information Scortesco had received from his cousin, Prince Steno Borghese, a prominent member of the Vatican's Noble Guard, and “President” of the 1963 Conclave. Scortesco asserted that the threats were delivered into the 1958 and 1963 conclave by the highest masonic lodge, the B'nai B'rith.
Malachi Martin referred to threats against Siri in the 1963 conclave in his 1990 book, The Keys of this Blood, on page 607-609. Martin stated that the outside interference came from "an emissary of an internationally based organization" and further suggested that the threats against Siri and the other Cardinals had to do with ". . . grave reasons of state - - - such as the very existence of the Vatican City State . . ."
What could threaten the very existence of the Vatican City State other than the nuclear weapons (see article, An Ominous Anniversary, linked below this article) that were available for the first time in history to the Ruling Elite behind the intertwined Masonic/Communist/Zionist powers? Informed observers now know that at that time these ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic forces controlled both the upper echelons of the executive government in both the Eisenhower administration in the USA and the Khrushchev regime in the USSR. In 1958, only the USA and the USSR had nuclear weapons. The Vicar of Christ found himself in a predicament comparable to what the early Popes experienced during the first centuries A.D. Within a few years, the Church herself was forced into the catacombs again where no nation could or would defend her against the dominant powers of the day.
* * * * * * *
Canon Law 2390, from the 1917 code (which was in effect and being observed in 1958), as explained by the eminent canonist Fr. P. Charles Augustine O.S.B., D.D., deals with the issue of outside threats that are intended to cancel the results of a completed ecclesiastical election. Once the canonical election has taken place, any subsequent election of another candidate would be null and void.
In addition, Canon Law 185 deals with the resignation of an ecclesiastical office holder, which, if obtained by threats or grave fear, is invalid.
(Therefore, if, as more than one source claims, outside threats were brought against Siri and his electors immediately after his canonical election on October 26, 1958, then any subsequent resignation forced upon him would have been null and void. Moreover, the attempt to elect Roncalli two days later would also have been null and void. In this regard, the recent comments immediately below of Fr. Charles-Roux are most interesting and relevant.)
* * * * * * *
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." He then goes on to assert that, per the impossible, the first election in 1958 was "annulled" by Tisserant, the camerlengo. Finally he says, "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." (Inside the Vatican noted that Fr. Charles-Roux was one of the priests who said Holy Mass on the set of the film, The Passion of the Christ, during production.) Inside the Vatican and its editor, Mr. Robert Moynihan, can hardly be classified as sympathetic to the Siri investigation. The magazine awarded its 2005 "Man of the Year" to Moynihan's long time friend, Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger), whom we are asserting here is the fifth in the line of Vatican II antipopes.
* * * * * * *
In this regard, an astounding prophecy from St. Francis of Assisi is recorded in the Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi, published by Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250. Part of this prophecy is rendered this way by Rev. Gerald Culleton in his book, The Reign of Antichrist, 1951, Academy Duplicating Service, Fresno, California, page 130:
“There will be an uncanonically elected pope who will cause a great Schism, there will be diverse thoughts preached which will cause many, even those in the different orders to doubt, yea, even agree with those heretics which will cause my Order to divide, then will there be such universal dissension and persecutions that if those days were not shortened even the elect would be lost.”
* * * * * * *
The above evidence is only a small portion of what this investigation has uncovered which indicates that Joseph Cardinal Siri was elected Pope, and then illegally overthrown, two days before antipope John XXIII came out on the balcony in 1958. It is far from the minds of modern Catholics that there have been at least 44 antipopes throughout Church history -- more than two per century -- and more than once the antipope occupied the Vatican itself while the true Pope languished in exile. What is beyond question is that an anti-Catholic revolution against the Church's doctrine, liturgy, sacraments, disciplines, and social teachings began to be introduced through John XXIII almost immediately after his appearance on the world stage. The results of this diabolical revolution have devastated every aspect of Catholic faith, worship and practice within the structures of the Church during the 50 years (1958 to 2008, as of this updated commentary) which have followed. All of this "diabolical disorientation", to use the words of Sister Lucy of Fatima, began to manifest at the reversal of the white smoke at exactly 6 PM on that most fateful evening of October 26, 1958.
Mr. Giuffré continues:
Consequently, it is my opinion that “the eclipse of the Church,” took place precisely at 6 P.M., on 26 October 1958 (Rome time). Ominously, the Feast of Christ the King was celebrated earlier that day in St. Peter’s Basilica, just hours before the eclipse took place, and ever since then, the very concept of the social rights of Christ the King has been gradually “eclipsed” as well.
However I do not believe that the "Eclipse of the Church" was gradual – but was TOTAL from 6 P.M., 26 October 1958, to the present day. Why? Because, from that instant, the government of the Church, which can only be legitimate if the rightful pontiff is at its head, was hidden from the entire world. This is crucial to understanding what happened to the Catholic Church. Without the government of the Church, to which the Catholic faithful are united as one, there is no Mark of One, and without that mark of unity and “oneness,” the first of the four indispensable Marks of the Church is lacking, and no institution that is missing one of the Four Marks can be the Catholic Church. Even though it retained valid Sacraments for a time, like the schismatic Greek Orthodox Church, the new institution, born of revolt, that emerged from the conclave two days later was no longer the true Church. In a short time, its falseness began to manifest itself even before Vatican II saw the light of day. In complete disobedience to the decree, “Mediator Dei,” of Pope Pius XII, the changes in the ordinary of the Mass and the liturgical calendar began on 1 January 1961, one year, 10 months, and 11 days before the start of Vatican II. But the removal of the reference to the “perfidious Jews” in Good Friday’s Mass of the Pre-Sanctified occurred even before then, and was thus indicative of the ultimate origins of the anti-church that appeared on the scene immediately after the vitiated ’58 Conclave.
Some believe, as I once did, that the false Church was born at Vatican II. Rather, the overthrow of the Pope and his replacement by a usurper was the enabling act for the instantaneous creation of a false church in October 1958, by which a counterfeit council with counterfeit doctrines would later come about. The robber council merely put the finishing touches on the anti-church’s program for the total destruction of the faith of Catholics, which is now plain to see from the vantage point of hindsight over the 40 years since that wicked operation of error was concluded. Such could never have been the product of the Catholic Church, but was only a manifestation of the counter church which had eclipsed the true Church at 6 P.M., 26 October 1958.
The great Swiss theologian, Monsignor Charles Journet, in 1955, described exactly how the Church could be instantly eclipsed were its leadership to be replaced by others without the “uninterrupted succession” which has continued since the time of St. Peter:
“To maintain that the true Church is apostolic is to maintain that she depends, as heat on fire, on a spiritual virtue residing in the Holy Trinity and thence descending by stages, first into the humanity of Christ, then into the two-fold power, sacramental and jurisdictional, of the apostolic body, and finally to the Christian people. Where we find this mediation, this chain of dependence, there we find the true Church … Where this mediation is lacking there also the true Church is lacking … No link of the chain can be omitted or even changed. The Godhead is eternal; Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever … and to the end of the world He will assist the apostolic body … An eternal God, an immortal Christ, an indefectible apostolic body…
“But the apostolic body can be indefectible only in virtue of an uninterrupted succession. Suppose it had failed, and then been replaced by another institution to all appearances identical: apparently nothing would have been altered, but in point of fact everything would have been subverted; and this would quickly become apparent. Naturally, both God and Christ would remain untouched; but the institution claiming to take the place of the apostolic body and separated from it by a break, would be a new institution, and could not be that indefectible institution set up in the world by Christ. It would therefore inherit none of the mysterious privileges attached by Him to the true apostolic body; it would have but a simulacrum [simulation] of the power of order, a simulacrum [simulation] of the power of jurisdiction, and any appearance of permanency would be illusory. From this standpoint, the need for an uninterrupted succession in the apostolic body … is obvious. Without it, the last link of the chain by which the Church is suspended would be broken, and the divine apostolicity of the Church would have foundered.” – Charles Journet, “The Church of the Word Incarnate,” Sheed and Ward, London, 1955, pages 526-27.
Final notes
For added emphasis of the critical point, it is necessary to point out that Mr. Giuffré makes clear from the above and from his other writings that the Church itself did not fail on October 26, 1958, but was merely eclipsed, as Our Lady of La Salette predicted in 1846.
The True Church was still there, but was in the early stages of being blocked from the view of almost the entire world by this counterfeit church of darkness (to use the words of the stigmatic Augustinian nun and visionary Venerable Anna Katherine Emmerich--pictured left) which had shoved aside the validly elected Pope on October 26th, 1958 -- and replaced him with Angelo Roncalli, John XXIII. Roncalli was presented to the world two days later, on October 28, 1958, on the Papal balcony amidst the wild cheers of the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic mass media which resounded around the world then and for many years thereafter.
The counterfeit church, however, falls under the frightening reality described by Monsignor Charles Journet as quoted above. It has proven itself to be, in fact, the counterfeit church of ʝʊdɛօ-Masonry, of John XXIII, of Paul VI, of Vatican Council II, of John Paul I, of John Paul II, and now of Benedict XVI. This counterfeit church of darkness lacks jurisdiction, does not qualify as being in the perpetual and uninterrupted succession of St. Peter. At first "to all appearances" it seemed to be "identical" to the true Church, -- which illusion eventually, with an escalating vengeance, became ominously apparent. It was this intruding counterfeit church which claimed to take the place of the Apostolic body, but which was separated from it by a break, and was, in fact, a "new institution," and therefore was not "that indefectible institution set up in the world by Christ."
And, therefore, it inherited "none of the mysterious privileges attached by Him to the true Apostolic body," but it only simulates jurisdiction, it only simulates most of the sacraments. It is the appearance of permanence for this counterfeit church which is illusory. Many prophecies of holy persons indicate that when "all seems lost" this monstrous counterfeit church will be swept away like a vanishing shadow as the triumph of the Church bursts upon Christ's enemies like lightning.
Mr. Giuffré concludes:
From this reasoning, I am persuaded that the “Eclipse of the Church” was total at the precise moment of 6 P.M., 26 October 1958 (Rome time), and that subsequent events, such as the liturgical changes and the falsification of the Church’s doctrine at Vatican II, did not complete the eclipse, but were merely manifestations of what had already happened to the true Church once the headship of its government was overthrown and replaced by something else that lacked the “uninterrupted (perpetual) succession” promised to the papacy, as defined by Vatican I in 1870.
This view of the "Eclipse of the Church" leads us to some unanswered questions which Our Lord will surely resolve for us in His Own good time. Before that happens, all attempts to defend any shred of legitimacy for John XXIII, Paul VI, Vatican II or the changes since 1958, John Paul I, John Paul II, or Benedict XVI, cause those who engage in such mental gymnastics, at least by implication, to deny the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church itself. Similarly, those who hold that a legitimate conclave, conducted by the papal princes of the Church to whom is guaranteed the guidance of the Holy Ghost in the selection of the rightful Vicar of Christ, somehow elected an antipope, also deny the indefectibility of the Church. Rejecting both untenable explanations for the generation-spanning ecclesiastical crisis, a growing number of the faithful now realize that actors usurped the papal office from its rightful claimant, have been running the Vatican since 1958, and are in reality not popes but the leaders of a counterfeit church which is eclipsing the True Church. Catholics who have come to this awareness and understanding have preserved themselves from denying any of the doctrines, divinely instituted prerogatives, or marks of the Church, and thus remain faithful to Christ and His Church while they await with confidence the unfolding of the Savior’s Divine Plan for the world in our time.
-
Many good links here:
https://www2.crashrecovery.org/jesuit/The%20Pope%20in%20Red%20-%20Cardinal%20Siri.html
-
edit :popcorn:
-
Roscoe,
Please give us the source on this quote.
The "Siri Theory" alone is enough reason for the SSPX not to have had their theatrical dialogues with Rome.
If Bp. Williamson finally acknowledges this ʝʊdɛօ-masonic conspiracy, it's important to note.
-
A few observations.
.
It is interesting that one of the main sources for all these claims, Fr. Charles-Roux, doesn't even claim to have been in the conclave. So he is apparently only repeating what he heard from someone else.
.
Gary Giuffre: Before that happens, all attempts to defend any shred of legitimacy for John XXIII, Paul VI, Vatican II or the changes since 1958, John Paul I, John Paul II, or Benedict XVI, cause those who engage in such mental gymnastics, at least by implication, to deny the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church itself. Similarly, those who hold that a legitimate conclave, conducted by the papal princes of the Church to whom is guaranteed the guidance of the Holy Ghost in the selection of the rightful Vicar of Christ, somehow elected an antipope, also deny the indefectibility of the Church.
.
I agree with most of this (except that the Holy Ghost guides the cardinals in the election of a pope, which I don't think is correct), but it raises another problem. The whole Church accepted John XXIII as pope, including the supposed true pope himself. I think that would also go against the indefectibility of the Church too. And if Cardinal Siri accepted John XXIII as pope, wouldn't that be an act of schism separating him from the Church?
.
Another interesting problem with the Siri Thesis is that, if someone came forward in the future to claim he was the true pope as the successor of Cardinal Siri, how on earth would he be able to prove such a claim?
.
I'm not throwing Gary Giuffre under the bus, because most of that long article was reasonable and interesting, but I just don't think the Siri story can ever be proved, and there are serious problems with it in regards to how it supposedly played out in the 50s and since. Most of the biggest problems with it are the public actions of Cardinal Siri since 1958. These are very hard to reconcile with Gary's theory.
.
I'm surprised to hear his website is down. How long has it been down, and do you think he has permanently taken it offline?
-
I agree with most of this (except that the Holy Ghost guides the cardinals in the election of a pope, which I don't think is correct), but it raises another problem. The whole Church accepted John XXIII as pope, including the supposed true pope himself. I think that would also go against the indefectibility of the Church too.
But aren't you a sedevacantist? If you're promoting the applicability of "Universal Acceptance" in this case, then that would militate against sedevacantism even more.
I don't believe that Universal Acceptance can unseat a legitimate pope. There's a historical precedent. I forget the names of the Popes involved (was it Martin?), but one pope was taken into exile, and another was elected (and universally accepted) while the former was still alive. That's the equivalent of the Church unseating a Pope, which cannot happen.
That's another reason why the Siri Theory is, theologically, a more satisfactory explanation for the Crisis. Had there not been a legitimate pope impeding the election of Roncalli, then one might argue that Unviersal Acceptance of Roncalli ensured his legitimacy.
-
But aren't you a sedevacantist? If you're promoting the applicability of "Universal Acceptance" in this case, than that would militate against sedevacantism in general.
I don't believe that Universal Acceptance can unseat a legitimate pope. There's a historical precedent. I forget the names of the Popes involved (was it Martin?), but one pope was taken into exile, and another was elected (and universally accepted) while the former was still alive. That's the equivalent of the Church unseating a Pope, which cannot happen.
.
That's what happened with Felix and Liberius. Bellarmine says that Felix became pope once the Roman clergy accepted him, despite the fact that Liberius was living. Mind you, it wasn't even universal acceptance (upon which Bellarmine bases his argument), but the acceptance of the Roman clergy.
-
.
That's what happened with Felix and Liberius. Bellarmine says that Felix became pope once the Roman clergy accepted him, despite the fact that Liberius was living.
Well, I disagree with Bellarmine. That would contradict the principle that the Church cannot depose a legitimate pope. In the materials I found about Felix, Felix is listed as an Antipope, so if you have a reference to what Bellarmine wrote on the subject, I'd be grateful.
-
Well, I disagree with Bellarmine. That would contradict the principle that the Church cannot depose a legitimate pope.
.
I think the principle is that the Church cannot depose a certainly legitimate pope. When legitimacy is in doubt, the Church, being a perfect society with not just all necessary means but also the right to be governed, has more leeway-- if we want to call it that. Otherwise, how could the western schism have ever been resolved? Anyways, this is part of Bellarmine's reasoning as far as I can tell. It isn't (necessarily) that the Roman Clergy deposed Liberius in the way that we think of it-- holding him to trial, accusing him, finding him guilty, etc.. It's more that they deposed him in the sense that they just couldn't tell if he was still their pope, so they accepted someone else in his stead, which acceptance made the other guy (Felix) pope.
-
You see, in my mind, the impediment created by a legitimate pope would be the only way the Masons/Illuminati/Communists (aka Jews) could pull off these Antipopes. Universal Acceptance, while perhaps it could provide a sanatio for a questionable election, could not depose a legitimate Pope.
Now, by the time Siri died, and the next Pope was elected after his death (Benedict XVI), the "Church" was already 98% non-Catholic, and their Universal Acceptance means next to nothing, no more than if the majority Arians had accepted universally an Arian pope.
-
Next, two years after the fall of Liberius, concerning which we spoke above, then the Roman Clergy abrogated Liberius from the pontifical dignity and conferred it upon Felix, whom they knew to be Catholic. From that time Felix began to be a true pope. Although Liberius was not a heretic , still it was considered that, on account of the peace made with the Arians, that he was a heretic, and from that presumption, his pontificate could rightly be abrogated. For, men are not held (or cannot be held) to thoroughly search hearts; yet when they see one who is a heretic by his external works, then they judge simply and condemn him as a heretic. Jerome shows this in his Chronicle, when he says that many from the Roman Clergy perjured themselves and went to Felix. They are said to have perjured themselves, because they did not keep the oath that they had taken to not receive another pontiff.
Next, Felix, now a true pope, noticing the danger to the Church and the faith, without a doubt inspired by God, who did not desert his Church, not only receded from communication with the Arians, but even compelled a council and declared the Emperor Constantius, as well as the bishops Ursacius and Valens, with whom LIberius had made peace, to be truly heretics. And for that reason, when Liberius returned to the city, Felix was ejected with his own by the Arians, and died not long after, whether beheaded, or consumed in labours. That is not known for certain. This, however, bears on the matter that Felix, after the fall of Liberius, was a true pope, and died for the Catholic faith, which is proved by these arguments."
From Ryan Grant's small edition of Papal Error?, pp. 25-26
-
When I first encountered Bellarmine's view of the Felix/Liberius affair, it seemed totally at odds with the rest of his doctrine. I thought (at the time) that someone either is or isn't pope, and if one man is pope there really is nothing at all in the world that can make him not pope (aside from his own death or resignation/vacation of the office). Who people think is pope does not at all affect who actually is pope. The very idea smacks of relativism. Or so I thought.
.
If, on the other hand, we view the papacy as a relation-- which we should!-- Bellarmine's account starts to make more sense. It is true that a man either is or isn't pope, but there is a special category of man who is pope and who cannot prove it to the satisfaction of his inferiors. In such an instance, the relational aspect of the papacy has basically dissolved. We know, axiomatically, that a doubtful superior is no superior at all. But we do not often consider how this axiom is more than practical guidance. In a certain sense, doubt about a superior can itself suffice to divest him of any office, precisely because the relationship between him and his subordinates has dissolved.
.
Anyways, that seems to be what animates Bellarmine's account of the whole affair, even though he doesn't put it in those exact terms.
.
It's an interesting idea, and believable. Whether or not one ultimately agrees. I first stumbled across this about three years ago, and I'm still not sure exactly what to make of it.
-
.
I think the principle is that the Church cannot depose a certainly legitimate pope.
Well, if Siri had been elected Pope, had accepted, and chosen the name Gregory XVII, as has been claimed, then he would have at that moment been "certainly" the Pope. Theologians agree that he becomes the Pope at the very moment of his acceptance of a legitimate election. He doesn't only become the Pope upon walking out onto the balcony and being revealed to the world.
I also think that theologians agree that there was one legitimate Pope during the Great Western schism despite the lack of certainty across the Church. Otherwise, the See would have been vacant the entire time, nearly 40 years. And of course, that's one of the big complaints against sedevacantism, the lengthy vacancy.
As a side note, if Siri was the Pope, then the vacancy would be at 31 years and counting, not the 62 that people like XavierSem like to cite.
-
When I first encountered Bellarmine's view of the Felix/Liberius affair, it seemed totally at odds with the rest of his doctrine. I thought (at the time) that someone either is or isn't pope, and if one man is pope there really is nothing at all in the world that can make him not pope (aside from his own death or resignation/vacation of the office). Who people think is pope does not at all affect who actually is pope. The very idea smacks of relativism. Or so I thought.
.
If, on the other hand, we view the papacy as a relation-- which we should!-- Bellarmine's account starts to make more sense. It is true that a man either is or isn't pope, but there is a special category of man who is pope and who cannot prove it to the satisfaction of his inferiors. In such an instance, the relational aspect of the papacy has basically dissolved. We know, axiomatically, that a doubtful superior is no superior at all. But we do not often consider how this axiom is more than practical guidance. In a certain sense, doubt about a superior can itself suffice to divest him of any office, precisely because the relationship between him and his subordinates has dissolved.
.
Anyways, that seems to be what animates Bellarmine's account of the whole affair, even though he doesn't put it in those exact terms.
.
It's an interesting idea, and believable. Whether or not one ultimately agrees. I first stumbled across this about three years ago, and I'm still not sure exactly what to make of it.
This would be an interesting read. It seems that others disagree with him also, since all the lists of Popes I've seen (in my admittedly limited searches) list Felix as an Antipope.
-
Well, if Siri had been elected Pope, had accepted, and chosen the name Gregory XVII, as has been claimed, then he would have at that moment been "certainly" the Pope. Theologians agree that he becomes the Pope at the very moment of his acceptance of a legitimate election. He doesn't only become the Pope upon walking out onto the balcony and being revealed to the world.
.
I don't disagree with that, but read the rest of what I said.
.
The certainty of a papal claim isn't static. That is (one of the takeaways) from the Liberius affair. Liberius was certainly pope (i.e., no one had any doubts about him being pope) at one point in time. Then at another point in time, he wasn't certainly pope.
.
Remember the relational character of the papacy. The idea of someone being pope who no one knows is pope is a very sketchy idea, especially over a protracted period.
-
.
I don't disagree with that, but read the rest of what I said.
.
The certainty of a papal claim isn't static. That is (one of the takeaways) from the Liberius affair. Liberius was certainly pope (i.e., no one had any doubts about him being pope) at one point in time. Then at another point in time, he wasn't certainly pope.
.
Remember the relational character of the papacy. The idea of someone being pope who no one knows is pope is a very sketchy idea, especially over a protracted period.
Would you say, then, that during the Great Western Schism, there was no pope at all ... for about 40 years? I don't believe that this is a common opinion.
-
But aren't you a sedevacantist? If you're promoting the applicability of "Universal Acceptance" in this case, then that would militate against sedevacantism even more.
.
Yes, I am. I lean toward the idea that John XXIII was a true pope, but the last one we've had. Universal acceptance and all that ... Everyone claiming to be Catholic was indeed Catholic in 1958, including the entire hierarchy. And it appears that John XXIII was peacefully accepted as pope by everyone. So the conclusion follows. As far as John XXIII being a public heretic, I haven't seen conclusive proof of that.
.
I don't believe that Universal Acceptance can unseat a legitimate pope.
.
No, the way the idea works is that a false pope would not be able to attain Universal Acceptance in the first place, so it's a moot point whether it could unseat a legitimate pope. The scenario is impossible.
.
There's a historical precedent. I forget the names of the Popes involved (was it Martin?), but one pope was taken into exile, and another was elected (and universally accepted) while the former was still alive. That's the equivalent of the Church unseating a Pope, which cannot happen.
.
We've discussed this in the past, but historians have suggested the pope who was taken prisoner left behind a post-dated resignation letter, to go into effect if he did not return with a certain period of time. The new pope was only elected after the deadline passed. In any case, since we know so little about this strange incident, it's not worth much as an argument either way.
.
That's another reason why the Siri Theory is, theologically, a more satisfactory explanation for the Crisis. Had there not been a legitimate pope impeding the election of Roncalli, then one might argue that Unviersal Acceptance of Roncalli ensured his legitimacy.
.
I don't see great problems with saying Roncalli was pope. He didn't teach heresy as Catholic doctrine, like Paul VI and afterwards did. But as I like to stress, these are questions of profound obscurity and I have a fairly open mind about a lot of these things. I'm even open-minded about the Siri Thesis, but find the problems against it much greater, and the evidence in favor of it much weaker, than other competing theories.
.
EDIT: typos
-
Would you say, then, that during the Great Western Schism, there was no pope at all ... for about 40 years? I don't believe that this is a common opinion.
.
No, I wouldn't say that. Although it is an idea that can't be discounted (Fr. Reilly's famous paper on the Council of Constance agrees).
.
This is an underdeveloped vein of ecclesiology, I think. But the basic idea is clear and sensible enough: a superior (the pope, but also bishops and others with offices) is a superior by virtue of a superior-subordinate relationship. That's the essence of what it is to be a superior. Hence, if that relationship dissolves, then the man is no longer a superior. Typically this relationship only dissolves in the case of death or resignation/removal, but there are other possibilities, such as a situation where the superior's subordinates have a well founded doubt about the relationship's existence. Especially if this doubt is so severe as to motivate the subordinates to find a new leader (which was the case in the Liberius/Felix affair), then the doubt itself as 'deposed' the first superior, so to speak.
.
-
So, Yeti, in 1976 with the election of Montini, Universal Acceptance was no longer in play?
-
This is an underdeveloped vein of ecclesiology, I think.
Yes, I agree. I don't believe anyone foresaw something like today's Crisis.
-
.
Yes, I am. I lean toward the idea that John XXIII was a true pope, but the last one we've had. Universal acceptance and all that ... Everyone claiming to be Catholic was indeed Catholic in 1958, including the entire hierarchy. And it appears that John XXIII was peacefully accepted as pope by everyone. So the conclusion follows. As far as John XXIII being a public heretic, I haven't seen conclusive proof of that.
.
.
No, the way the idea works is that a false pope would not be able to attain Universal Acceptance in the first place, so it's a moot point whether it could unseat a legitimate pope. The scenario is impossible.
.
.
We've discussed this in the past, but historians have suggested the pope who was taken prisoner left behind a post-dated resignation letter, to go into effect if he did not return with a certain period of time. The new pope was only elected after the deadline passed. In any case, since we know so little about this strange incident, it's not worth much as an argument either way.
.
.
I don't see great problems with saying Roncalli was pope. He didn't teach heresy as Catholic doctrine, like Paul VI and afterwards did. But as I like to stress, these are questions of profound obscurity and I have a fairly open mind about a lot of these things. I'm even open-minded about the Siri Thesis, but find the problems against it much greater, and the evidence in favor of it much weaker, than other competing theories.
.
EDIT: typos
Montini et al. enjoyed no less Universal Acceptance than Roncalli.
-
I assume that the reason that this thread was started is to try to bring the Resistance into sedevacantism.
Not that +W is a sedevacantist. Not at all. But there are forum members who want, at all costs, to bring the Resistance on board with sedevacantism. They can't stand that the Resistance is not sedevacanist or sedewhatever.
While most of the participating forum members are sedevacantists (or their fellow travelers), the Resistance leadership is not aligned with sedevacantism or sedeprivationism. Even though Ladislaus will no doubt beg to differ.
-
I assume that the reason that this thread was started is to try to bring the Resistance into sedevacantism.
Not that +W is a sedevacantist. Not at all. But there are forum members who want, at all costs, to bring the Resistance on board with sedevacantism. They can't stand that the Resistance is not sedevacanist or sedewhatever.
While most of the participating forum members are sedevacantists (or their fellow travelers), the Resistance leadership is not aligned with sedevacantism or sedeprivationism. Even though Ladislaus will no doubt beg to differ.
.
Fr. Pfeiffer just got consecrated (sic) by a sedevacantist whom he pledges he will remember in all of his masses for the rest of his life.
.
Fr. Chazal articulates a brand of sedeprivationism.
.
Fr. Ringrose does, too.
.
Many French priests, like Frs. Pinaud, Roy, etc. are non-una cuм.
.
How do you maintain your position without appealing to a 'no true scotsman' fallacy?
-
.
Fr. Pfeiffer just got consecrated (sic) by a sedevacantist whom he pledges he will remember in all of his masses for the rest of his life.
.
Fr. Chazal articulates a brand of sedeprivationism.
.
Fr. Ringrose does, too.
.
Many French priests, like Frs. Pinaud, Roy, etc. are non-una cuм.
.
How do you maintain your position without appealing to a 'no true scotsman' fallacy?
Fr. Pfeiffer is not a part of the Resistance that I'm referring to. You know that.
Fr. Chazal does NOT articulate any brand of sedeprivationism. That you and the other sedes, such as Ladislaus, maintain that he is a sedeprivationist is decietful. Fr. Chazal himself says that he is not a sedeprivationist. You and Ladislaus do not allow Fr. Chazal to have his own views on the subject. Your definition is the only one that is allowed, and you do not allow Fr. Chazal a differing view of sedeprivationism.
Ladislaus is a supreme manipulator, and he has the full blessing of the owner of CathInfo to manipulate everyone here. They will not stop until the Resistance has gone sede.
It is already well on its way (the manipulative laity here, that is, who believe that they are in fact qualified to rule over all of tradition). You, and Ladislaus, will not be happy until you have controlled all of the priests in the Resistance. I don't think that they will go along with you, but you may succeed in bringing the trad laity on board with your nefarious agenda.
Sedevacantism is laity-centric, and as such, it's very Vatican ll. Sedevacantism a form of modernism.
-
How do you maintain your position without appealing to a 'no true scotsman' fallacy?
.
So in other words, you can't.
-
.
So in other words, you can't.
Well, I have heard it argued that sedevacantism is the 'no true scotsman' fallacy applied to the papacy and the Church.
-
Many links here: http://thepopeinred.com/thesis.htm
"Siri" was rabidly anti-Communist, an intransigent traditionalist in matters of church doctrine.
"I am the most relentless enemy of communism because it destroys man, destroys the economy, destroys everything. ... I remember going to Pius XII once, and I saw on his desk, otherwise perfectly empty, two books: one was on collegiality. He asked me what I thought about it: 'Holiness, throw it out. I read it and there is nothing good in it.' ... And there are those who define Rahner as 'the number one theologian.' But I smell errors from far away; it is a matter of sniffing." -Quotes from "Cardinal Siri" (30 Days Magazine January 17, 1985 A.D.)
He termed Vatican II "the greatest mistake in history"3 From the book, The Unelected Pope; Giuseppe Siri, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church (1993), by Benny Lai, pp. 296-297, from the last recorded conversation with Cardinal Siri. The numbered items are from the book, the comments from Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes.
1. "On September 18, 1988, Cardinal Siri concluded his last recorded conversation with the author by saying: 'A Pope just barely elected (save by a miracle, and the Lord never does useless miracles) - so what does he know, this poor man, of this duty which faces him?"
An admission of Siri's election. Siri did attempt to publicize his election, but the media refused to print it as the media was already under control of the Freemasons.
2. 'It is necessary for him to be integrated into his new position. The question which defines and completes a pontificate is the choice of the Secretary of State because he is the one who must educate the Pope.'
This statement was made only three months after Siri had reportedly appointed *Monsignor Carlo Taramasso, of Santa Marinella (near Rome) as one of his cardinals (*he was made a Cardinal in June, 1988 -Webmaster), who would become his chief confidant and advisor, until 16 March 1989, when Taramasso suddenly and mysteriously died, ten weeks after a visit from the infamous "Cardinal" Casaroli of the Vatican.
3. 'Not all Popes become such after having been through the school to become one.'
Notice, he does not say, "Not everyone becomes a Pope after having gone through the school to become one," but, "Not all Popes become such..." This could be interpreted to mean that not every Pope is allowed to function as a Pope even after the process of his having been made Pope.
4. 'The schooling, even without his wanting it, occurs before the election, during which time, the position, his adequacy for the position, and his faithfulness to the position are properly combined.'
There is mounting evidence, some of which can be gleaned from the book, "The Unelected Pope," that Siri was being prepared by what he thought was training for the papacy (when he was first contacted in Genoa, in the mid-1950s, by Soviet diplomats to be an intermediary between them and Pius XII), but which was in reality a process of intimidation and entrapment in order to set him up to be elected Pope at a future conclave, only to be forced to relinquish the public exercise of his office, by the threat of a monstrous, bloody persecution of the faithful in Eastern Europe, and by the threat of schism by the French hierarchy who, from the start of the conclave, promoted his candidature to the other cardinals in order to carry out their devilish plan. They also threatened the setting off of a hydrogen bomb to destroy the Vatican and its officials. Under the cover of conclave secrecy the blackmail was delivered to the "barely elected" and stunned, new Pope by France's Cardinal Tisserant, who was an agent of the B'nai B'rith, the тαℓмυdic master-lodge of the Masonic and Marxist world powers. Before the end of his life, Siri began to acknowledge and lament openly, as these cryptic passages suggest, his inability to fulfill the duties of his office as Pope, during the ordeal of his 30 year long exile.
Nuclear Terrorism
The Church's enemies evil agenda was to force "Siri" (a.k.a. Pope Gregory XVII)
to relinquish the public exercise of His office, by any means possible.
On pages 607 to 609 of his book, "The Keys Of This Blood," Malachi Martin, perennial insider and eye-witness to the '63 Conclave, admits that Siri was elected Pope (again) in 1963, but that his election was "set aside" because of an outside "communication" (interference) by an "internationally based organization", regarding a "grave matter of [Vatican] state security." He then tries to justify outside interference of the conclave if it is conducted "by authorized persons" or if "the very existence of the Vatican City-State or its members or dependents" were at stake.
Pope Gregory XVII
A Repentent Pope
5. 'I say this because I have great remorse.'
Why would Siri have "great remorse", other than for allowing the Church to be nearly destroyed by his failure to assert publicly his rightful claim to office for 30 years?
6. 'I have faith in the forgiveness of the Lord and, therefore, I am calm.'
Forgiveness only comes after a firm purpose of amendment from the wrong path we had previously followed. Therefore, Siri must be saying that he had finally taken steps to reverse the tragic course he had taken since 1958, by now defending the Church and her highest office by providing for a valid successor to the papacy.
7. 'In the first two conclaves in which I participated, my candidature was presented by an influential Cardinal. He, himself, told me that all the French were behind him.'
Cardinal Tisserant
Fifth Column Infiltrator (Cardinal Tisserant)
This is undoubtedly Cardinal Tisserant, Dean of the College of Cardinals, who controlled the block of six French Cardinals, and promoted a unanimous vote for Siri to get him elected, only to announce immediately that he was "annulling" Monsignor Siri's election, supposedly to prevent the assassination of the Iron Curtain Bishops which he declared would occur as a reprisal by the Soviets against the Church, for electing an anti-Communist Pope. That such an occurrence actually happened was verified by former Vatican official, Father Jean- Marie Char-Roux on 14 July 1993, in London, England.
8. 'Then others joined the French. The Germans vacillated, then, at some point gave way and joined the rest.'
Here Siri reveals for the first time, his unanimous election as Pope, when finally, the German cardinals "joined the rest" and voted for him on the fourth ballot, at 6 P.M., 26 October, 1958.
9. 'I said no, and if you elect me I will say no.'
Siri did indeed refuse to accept office following the first three ballots, when there was less than an unanimous vote in his favor, and he even attempted to dissuade the cardinals by predicting that he would continue to refuse if they tried to elect him again.
10. 'I have made a mistake, I understand it today.'
But Siri was mistaken on three counts: first, on moral principles, by declaring to the cardinals his unqualified intention to refuse office beforehand, should they later make him Pope-elect. True, it is the prerogative of every cardinal to refuse election to the Papal Office, but this right is not absolute. Cardinal Albini in the 1700 conclave refused the pontificate even when the electors had achieved virtual unanimity in his favor, but was persuaded by the theologians that he could not rightful refuse the office to which he was unanimously, or nearly unanimously elected, for he would then be rejecting the unmistakable Will of the Holy Ghost. Ever since then, this has been an accepted principle in Papal elections. Siri, of course, knew this, and was thus also incorrect in his prediction that he would not accept the pontificate, for by the fourth ballot, when all the cardinals had cast their votes for him, he was morally obliged to acquiesce to their wishes.
Cardinal Siri was Elected
White Smoke Bellowing from the Chimney of the Sistine Chapel October 26, 1958
Siri was the youngest cardinal in the Church when appointed by Pius XII at the age of 47 in 1953.
When Giovanni Battista Montini fell from Pius' favor, it was expected that Siri would succeed Pius in the 1958 conclave.
Thus, overwhelmingly convinced of the plan of God by the unified vote of the electors, Cardinal Siri accepted office, announced his desire to be known as Gregory XVII, and began to prepare to receive the first obeisances of the cardinals. At 6 P.M., white smoke was sent up the Sistine Chapel stovepipe for five uninterrupted minutes by the ministers of the conclave, to the thundering cheers of the delighted faithful outside, while Vatican Radio announced to the world that a new Pope had been chosen. Someone was made Pope that night. If not Siri, then who?
Freemason
Masonic Agent "Cardinal" Angelo Roncalli leaving for the 1958 Conclave
But Siri's third mistake was to capitulate to the conclave mutineers who, having just promoted his unanimous, canonical election, brutally shoved him aside within five minutes, so as to proceed with a second, invalid election of the Masonic agent Angelo Roncalli, two days later. Hoping to avoid a global, bloody persecution of the Church at any price, Siri did not foresee that he had expedited an alternative and far more terrible spiritual persecution of the Church, which would take the form of the dreaded, heretical Second Vatican Council, convened by antipope John XXIII and ratified by antipope Paul VI. This had been the enemy's principal goal all along, in order to give the appearance that the errors of the French Revolution were finally to be "consecrated" from the pinnacle of power within the Church's visible structures. This step was absolutely necessary to the "powers of darkness", so that they could place Masonic agents upon the Chair of Peter, who would be devoid of any guidance by the Holy Ghost, to spread the disease of heresy worldwide with the obedient cooperation of an unsuspecting clergy, while exiling the true Papal authority from Rome, and covering it up with a false authority. The Catholic Church's ancient enemies had pulled off a "coup d'etat" inside the headquarters of the Church's government. The true Church was now "in eclipse", as foretold by Our Lady of La Salette.
Our Lady of La Salette
"Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist... The Church will be in eclipse..."
(Words spoken by Our Lady of La Salette to Melanie Calvat in 1846 A.D., a fully approved Church Apparition)
11. 'Today? I have understood it for many years. I have done wrong because I should have avoided taking certain actions. I wish to say - but I am afraid to say it - making certain mistakes.'
Next to hiding his claim to the Papacy from the Church, Siri's most deadly mistake was his participation in the bogus Second Vatican Council and his signature to its poisonous decrees. It should be noted, however, that Siri's signature was not rendered in his official capacity as Pope but was written simply as "Giuseppe Cardinal Siri", and was undoubtedly coerced. Thereafter he announced: "We will not be bound by these decrees."
12. 'Thus I have had great remorse and I have asked the forgiveness of God. I hope that God forgives me.'
Reduced to a helpless bystander, Siri agonized over his having allowed the near destruction of the Church and the loss of countless souls over a generation. His failed policy of trying to "reason" with the wolves in sheep's clothing rather than to sound the alarm to the lambs that they were being led to the slaughter by false shepherds, caused incalculable harm to the faithful. Siri's last confessor, Padre Candido Caponni, testified in Genoa, Italy, on 12 October 1992, that in his final days, Siri repeatedly expressed fear of the terrible Judgment of God that would soon be upon him "for not having lived up to his responsibilities."
13. 'Yes, in the last two conclaves my candidacy was [again] brought forward, but I did not repeat the same statement I had made at the other times. I told myself: I can't do it [what I did at the other times]. What will be, will be.'
Between the two conclaves of August and October, 1978, Siri defended his public record to the news media against the negative image of him presented by those who dreaded the possibility of his finally gaining control of the Church's structures, such that he was described by U.P.I. as "campaigning for the papacy."
14. 'I have gotten out of it well enough anyway, but at the last conclave, I think, Wyszynski went to find my secretary, telling him: "It is done, you will be the secretary of the Pope.'"
Until that time, Siri's status as Pope had been hidden from the faithful, allowing him to forestall the consequences of the terrible threats that had been brought against him. But with Cardinal Wyszynski's announcement to Siri's secretary, the disclosure of the Siri pontificate was nearly leaked to the outside world. What if it had been exposed that Siri had cooperated in the fraudulent elections of two, or perhaps three antipopes? The possibilities for disgracing the soon-to-be-acknowledged Pope were endless. But why did the cardinals remain silent, it is often asked? Potentially scandal-ridden by unconventional lifestyles, many of the cardinals had been checkmated by agents-provocateurs such as Malachi Martin, who admitted to journalist, Benjamin Kaufman, that he had been brought into the Vatican by the Jєωιѕн "Cardinal" Bea to dig up dirt on prelates targeted for blackmail. Martin boasted that he had been "shaking long-closeted skeletons in the faces of cardinals who didn't quite want to do what Cardinal Bea and the pope wanted at the Council... 'I saw cardinals sweating in front of me'. Martin recalled... It was heady, having that power, 'and I began to enjoy it.'" (Cincinnati Enquirer, 22 December 1973)
15. 'I entered the conclave in a state of agony. I remember that I went to sit in a chair in the rear of the Pauline Chapel as one torn. I was in a state of agony.'
Siri does not relate the conclave events in chronological order. The scene in the Pauline Chapel, which had to have occurred before the decisive vote, is reminiscent of a similar episode just prior to the election of Pope Pius X in 1903, widely reported about the holy Pontiff. Like his saintly predecessor, Siri was certain he would emerge from the conclave to be acknowledged by the world as Pope. But unlike Saint Pius X, Siri was caught in a sinister trap, for the fourth time.
16. 'God has saved me. How? Yes, a Cardinal had come to tell me what had happened. I cannot speak of it.'
The old Soviet threat to millions of the faithful was renewed, and once again, the "bait and switch" routine was repeated at the conclave, that is, a seemingly canonical election of Siri to the papacy takes place, only so that his public claim to office could be once more be suppressed, which demoralizes and intimidates a whole new group of "cardinals." Thus, in exchange for a false peace, Siri caved-in to a further consolidation of the Vatican's surrender into the hands of the government of Antichrist, without a shot being fired. Siri again declines to explain clearly what had happened, saying only, "I cannot speak of it," which is a repetition of his earlier refusals to reveal the dark cloud he had come under, when he would repeated say, "I am bound by the secret." In 1985, he described the secret as "horrible."
The Hidden Pope
"I have lived a very long life, and I have known men... and traitors. But I have never revealed the names of the traitors. I do not perform the work of the executioner. I know, however, how much it costs to speak the truth. They have not succeeded in making me ill, but they have succeeded in making me sad and depressed. But Jeremiah had enough lamentations; there's no need for me to add to them."
(Words of "Cardinal Siri" 30 Days Magazine January 17, 1985 A.D.)
17. 'But believe it... I have seen well the course of history over these long years, I have seen it well. And I also think I have even had the proper eyes to see it. I have worn glasses but I saw it well.'
Siri says he had "proper" eyes (or in other words, the eyes of a Pope) in order to see what was going on, the infirmities of age, notwithstanding.
18. 'Now I desire to leave this world without disturbing history and, therefore, let the others do that which in conscience they believe. I ask only that no lies are told and that is enough.'
Pope Gregory XVII
The Suffering Pontiff: His Holiness, Pope Gregory XVII
Although betrayed by His Cardinals beginning the day of His Divine Election on October 26, 1958 A.D., put under constant surveillance, a docuмented death-threat, and having absolutely no temporal-arm to turn to for help- Pope Gregory XVII (whose pontificate precisely fulfilled Our Lady of Fatima's warning, that if people do [did] not stop offending God by their sins, that: "...the Holy Father will have much to suffer...") by a near miraculous occurrence in the Spring of 1988 A.D., shortly before His death; did perform the proper actions to carry on the True Hierarchy (Mission) of the True Church.
Siri knew at age 82, he is not capable of leading the battle that is surely to come to overthrow Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ's popularized version of history and the illegal system of world government for Anti-Christ currently being prepared with the active assistance of the usurpers of the Vatican. For the first time, Siri speaks directly to those who have become aware of his terrible plight, and who seek to bring this hidden, earth-shaking history to light. Of us, he asks only that we speak the truth.
http://thepopeinred.com/thesis.htm
_____________________
-
.
Fr. Pfeiffer just got consecrated (sic) by a sedevacantist whom he pledges he will remember in all of his masses for the rest of his life.
.
Fr. Chazal articulates a brand of sedeprivationism.
.
Fr. Ringrose does, too.
.
Many French priests, like Frs. Pinaud, Roy, etc. are non-una cuм.
.
How do you maintain your position without appealing to a 'no true scotsman' fallacy?
Fr. Chazal disputes/rejects this.
Fr. Ringrose is no longer resistance (and Fr. Ortiz no longer lives there).
In short, there are no sede Resistance clergy.
You re either sede, or you are Resistance, but there are none who are both.
-
You re either sede, or you are Resistance, but there are none who are both.
Does "The Resistance" have some kind of official platform?
Fr. Ringrose was one of original Resistance members.
But then so was Fr. Pfeiffer. He's not part of "The Resistance," I take it. But why?
I don't think it's even clear what "The Resistance" is.
Wasn't there a scandal about Bishop Williamson doing confirmations at the chapel of a sedevacantist priest?
-
.
This would seem to follow. This is why the whole Siri Question is an insoluble problem. :confused:
Siri's papacy seems like a chicken and egg situation?
If Cardinal Siri was elected, accepted, and took the name Pope Gregory XVII, then he was the Pope.
The Conclave was over at that point.
But any attempt to threaten and depose him would have automatically invalidated the Conclave. Does everyone agree on this point?
Roncalli and his teammates usurped the Seat, blackmailed the non-masonic Cardinals with public excommunications,
and hijacked Church operations, to boast their false papacy to the world.
Roncalli's appointment of 35 Cardinals was this invalid and rigged future Conclaves.
As Giuffre explains, the Conclave was "vitiated" (Ruined in character or quality) and the Holy See blatantly corrupted.
newChurch had established it's beachhead as the real Catholic Church slid into eclipse... as Our Lady of La Salette predicted.
-
… Everyone claiming to be Catholic was indeed Catholic in 1958, including the entire hierarchy.
If this sentence means what it seems to mean, what was Pius X's reason for writing Pascendi almost fifty years earlier? The encyclical clearly views Modernism as having already become a major problem, not something incipient to be nipped in the bud. The encyclical probably slowed Modernism's growth, but it did not arrest it.
I would say, rather, that whereas almost all laymen and a great many priests were as Catholic as they seemed to be in 1958, the Modernist rot in the hierarchy, especially among the cardinals and bishops from western Europe and the States, had by then reached critical mass. For example, in Chicago, then the most populous archdiocese in this country, Cardinal Mundelein had been inculcating the Modernist mind-set in his clergy since the beginning of the twentieth century. In Europe, the names Bea, Congar, de Lubac, Rahner, Suenens, and many others would very soon become known to friend and foe alike.
… most of [Gary Giuffre's] long article was reasonable and interesting …
I certainly agree that it was long.
-
No time to read the Guffrie article yet. I have however discovered some new evidence of Card Siri election.
Acc to Taylor Marshall: in addition to the white smoke & Vatican radio announcement that we have a Pope, the bells of St Peters also rang out... :fryingpan:
-
So, Yeti, in 1976 with the election of Montini, Universal Acceptance was no longer in play?
.
The full phrase is "Universal Peaceful Acceptance". I wouldn't say Montini was peacefully accepted at all. The Church was in crisis, and the orthodox bishops including the head of the Holy Office, Cardinal Ottaviani, knew there were heretics in the hierarchy trying to take over. And everyone knew Montini was sympathetic to the modernists. The situation was entirely different in 1962 from what it had been in 1958. Probably never in history had the world changed so much in such a short time, actually, and then after Montini's "election" it changed even faster.
-
Montini et al. enjoyed no less Universal Acceptance than Roncalli.
.
This claim could possibly be made with Montini (on which see my last post), but certainly not with any of his successors. By 1978, people who had the Faith generally rejected the papal claimants, either directly (sedevacantists) or indirectly (SSPX).
-
If this sentence means what it seems to mean, what was Pius X's reason for writing Pascendi almost fifty years earlier? The encyclical clearly views Modernism as having already become a major problem, not something incipient to be nipped in the bud. The encyclical probably slowed Modernism's growth, but it did not arrest it.
.
Yeah, fair enough, but they were secret modernists. A secret heretic is still a member of the Church and can possess jurisdiction.
-
.
The full phrase is "Universal Peaceful Acceptance". I wouldn't say Montini was peacefully accepted at all. The Church was in crisis, and the orthodox bishops including the head of the Holy Office, Cardinal Ottaviani, knew there were heretics in the hierarchy trying to take over. And everyone knew Montini was sympathetic to the modernists. The situation was entirely different in 1962 from what it had been in 1958. Probably never in history had the world changed so much in such a short time, actually, and then after Montini's "election" it changed even faster.
None of that has anything to do with universal peaceful acceptance:
Not a single Bishop in the world contested the legitimacy of Montini’s election (nor has a single Bishop contested any of the subsequent pope-elects).
That’s pretty damn peaceful and universal, as in mathematically unanimous.
-
The Siri articles posted in this thread have been fascinating. Sort of like what you would get if Tom Clancy sat down with Cardinal Billot and they both collaborated on an ecclesiology thriller. I really wish the author had spent more time giving us Cardinal Siri's alleged statements and less time telling us how we have to interpret them in such a way that it results in his theory. I got a strong "tail wagging the dog" sense as I read it. The author clearly started out with what he believes and wrote the article in such a way as to create the same belief in the reader.
.
Honestly, I had never heard of the Siri: Rebooted! scenario, that supposedly the exact same thing happened in 1978 that happened in 1958, with Cardinal Siri being elected and then somehow forced out. You would think he would be already mentally prepared for that scenario, having been through it once already. Also, there was no question about the smoke that I know of in 1978. The whole thing seems a little detached from reality and common sense.
.
He still gives no explanation for why Cardinal Siri didn't contact one or more (or all?) of the traditional Catholic organizations and periodicals that were existing in the world by the end of the 1980s and telling them his story.
-
I assume that the reason that this thread was started is to try to bring the Resistance into sedevacantism.
Not that +W is a sedevacantist. Not at all. But there are forum members who want, at all costs, to bring the Resistance on board with sedevacantism.
Sadly, the last sentence quoted above is true, and your characterization of Bishop Williamson is at least still true—fingers crossed. I think, however, that the assumption in your first sentence is a possibility, perhaps even a probability, but as charity suggests that there is insufficient evidence to support it, may I suggest what I think is a safer assumption? Namely, that here, as often in the past, a certain number of readers have mistaken someone's meaning because they lack an adequate understanding of conditionality in standard English sentence structure.
The import of what Bishop Williamson said is that the correctness of the Siri thesis is a possibility. He never stated or even implied that he himself considered the evidence sufficient to give it credence. Once adherents of the thesis figure out what the bishop actually said, they will be sharply disappointed. Thank heaven for that.
-
Yeah, fair enough, but they were secret modernists. A secret heretic is still a member of the Church and can possess jurisdiction.
It is not possible to know much about the extent of their secrecy, even less to know the details of Modernism's corrupting effect on their soul. Least of all is it possible for you or anyone else to make a judgment about any loss of jurisdiction, which is a matter of an entirely different category. Indeed, all of the points you raise concern matters known solely to God.
A little intellectual humility would be a pleasant thing to behold. It hasn't been lying thick on the ground of this thread.
-
.
This claim could possibly be made with Montini (on which see my last post), but certainly not with any of his successors. By 1978, people who had the Faith generally rejected the papal claimants, either directly (sedevacantists) or indirectly (SSPX).
I'm sure Old Catholics would tell you people who "had the Faith" rejected the popes following Pope Pius IX.
Being able to point at a small schismatic group, a la the CMRI, and being able to say that they reject the pope, doesn't mean anything by itself. If we were to use criteria that strict, no pope would have ever enjoyed Universal Acceptance, making it an utterly useless concept.
-
None of that has anything to do with universal peaceful acceptance:
Not a single Bishop in the world contested the legitimacy of Montini’s election (nor has a single Bishop contested any of the subsequent pope-elects).
That’s pretty damn peaceful and universal, as in mathematically unanimous.
.
Universal peaceful acceptance doesn't just mean saying "He's the pope". It means accepting him as the rule of faith. I think a lot of the conservative bishops at Vatican 2 would have been hesitant to do that with Paul VI, although I think that can be argued either way. But certainly by 1978 everyone who still had the Catholic Faith had long since stopped accepting Paul VI as the rule of faith, and that snowball has only gained momentum in the years since.
-
I'm sure Old Catholics would tell you people who "had the Faith" rejected the popes following Pope Pius IX.
Being able to point at a small schismatic group, a la the CMRI, and being able to say that they reject the pope, doesn't mean anything by itself. If we were to use criteria that strict, no pope would have ever enjoyed Universal Acceptance, making it an utterly useless concept.
.
Well, I'm sorry for you if you have been accepting the teaching of Paul VI and his successors as your rule of faith. In the last few years especially you have been believing some pretty wacky stuff.
.
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/qRhutdaRlmBv3_Fo0X1ioBJ5Sio=/0x0:1000x667/1200x800/filters:focal(540x229:700x389)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/59000887/pope-francis.0.0.jpg)
-
.
Well, I'm sorry for you if you have been accepting the teaching of Paul VI and his successors as your rule of faith. In the last few years especially you have been believing some pretty wacky stuff.
.
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/qRhutdaRlmBv3_Fo0X1ioBJ5Sio=/0x0:1000x667/1200x800/filters:focal(540x229:700x389)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/59000887/pope-francis.0.0.jpg)
Marvellous argument. You should take up debating.
-
None of that has anything to do with universal peaceful acceptance:
Not a single Bishop in the world contested the legitimacy of Montini’s election (nor has a single Bishop contested any of the subsequent pope-elects).
That’s pretty damn peaceful and universal, as in mathematically unanimous.
The sentences above state the facts. Holy Mother Church runs on facts, not on cheesy speculations from people who think that they can solve grave problems created by other people through resort to legalistic doubletalk whose basis and implications they barely comprehend.
The problem of human evil, especially with regard to its presence among the hierarchy, is real and very serious. It will not be solved by recreating the Church in one's own image and to one's own taste.
-
But certainly by 1978 everyone who still had the Catholic Faith had long since stopped accepting Paul VI as the rule of faith, and that snowball has only gained momentum in the years since.
This is offensive nonsense. You simply don't know what you are talking about. Since "everyone who still had the Catholic Faith" is a set whose members you have neither the authority nor the ability to count, what you extrapolate from it, including the snowball you talk about, is no more than a figment of your imagination.
-
.
Universal peaceful acceptance doesn't just mean saying "He's the pope". It means accepting him as the rule of faith. I think a lot of the conservative bishops at Vatican 2 would have been hesitant to do that with Paul VI, although I think that can be argued either way. But certainly by 1978 everyone who still had the Catholic Faith had long since stopped accepting Paul VI as the rule of faith, and that snowball has only gained momentum in the years since.
This is nonsense:
You are adding criterion to universal peaceful acceptance, in order to contrive arguments for why it did/does not exist.
UPA refers ONLY to the fact of a man elected and accepted as pope, not to the quality or orthodoxy of his rule.
-
This is nonsense:
You are adding criterion to universal peaceful acceptance, in order to contrive arguments for why it did/does not exist.
UPA refers ONLY to the fact of a man elected and accepted as pope, not to the quality or orthodoxy of his rule.
.
This is turning into a different discussion, but the very nature of the papacy as the rule of faith means that, if a man is pope, then by definition his rule is orthodox. The two are inextricably linked by Our Lord, Who prayed for Peter that his faith would not fail.
.
Cardinal Billot, the one who made the idea of Universal Peaceful Acceptance famous, explained the doctrine of the pope being the rule of faith by saying, "For it would be the same thing for the Church to adhere to a false pope, as it would be to adhere to a false rule of faith, since the pope is the living rule which the Church must follow in believing and always in fact follows."
-
.
This is turning into a different discussion, but the very nature of the papacy as the rule of faith means that, if a man is pope, then by definition his rule is orthodox. The two are inextricably linked by Our Lord, Who prayed for Peter that his faith would not fail.
.
Cardinal Billot, the one who made the idea of Universal Peaceful Acceptance famous, explained the doctrine of the pope being the rule of faith by saying, "For it would be the same thing for the Church to adhere to a false pope, as it would be to adhere to a false rule of faith, since the pope is the living rule which the Church must follow in believing and always in fact follows."
Nobody disputes the pope is the rule of faith, but it is a different issue than whether or not his election has received UPA (which is antecedent to whether or not he is acting as the rule of faith).
Regarding the latter, he acts as the rule of faith when his teachings are magisterial (ie., universality one both time and space); when he teaches at the level of the authentic magisterium (which is not actually magisterial at all, for lack of temporal universality, or contradiction of same), he is not acting as a rule of faith, but as a private doctor (even when he cloaks his errors under the guise of council, encyclical, more proprietary, etc).
-
Nobody disputes the pope is the rule of faith, but it is a different issue than whether or not his election has received UPA (which is antecedent to whether or not he is acting as the rule of faith).
Regarding the latter, he acts as the rule of faith when his teachings are magisterial (ie., universality one both time and space); when he teaches at the level of the authentic magisterium (which is not actually magisterial at all, for lack of temporal universality, or contradiction of same), he is not acting as a rule of faith, but as a private doctor (even when he cloaks his errors under the guise of council, encyclical, more proprietary, etc).
...council, encyclical, motu proprio, etc.).
-
The Siri articles posted in this thread have been fascinating. Sort of like what you would get if Tom Clancy sat down with Cardinal Billot and they both collaborated on an ecclesiology thriller. I really wish the author had spent more time giving us Cardinal Siri's alleged statements and less time telling us how we have to interpret them in such a way that it results in his theory. I got a strong "tail wagging the dog" sense as I read it. The author clearly started out with what he believes and wrote the article in such a way as to create the same belief in the reader.
.
Honestly, I had never heard of the Siri: Rebooted! scenario, that supposedly the exact same thing happened in 1978 that happened in 1958, with Cardinal Siri being elected and then somehow forced out. You would think he would be already mentally prepared for that scenario, having been through it once already. Also, there was no question about the smoke that I know of in 1978. The whole thing seems a little detached from reality and common sense.
.
He still gives no explanation for why Cardinal Siri didn't contact one or more (or all?) of the traditional Catholic organizations and periodicals that were existing in the world by the end of the 1980s and telling them his story.
Father Peter Khoat Van Tran claims Card, Siri, when asked why he surrendered his Seat,..
kept repeating that he was under an oath not to speak.
(http://www.papalrestoration.com/fr-khoat-meeting-with-pope-gregory-xvii-6-14-88-rome-3.jpg)
It would seem that he was a hostage suffering from the Stockholm syndrome.
-
Nobody disputes the pope is the rule of faith, but it is a different issue than whether or not his election has received UPA (which is antecedent to whether or not he is acting as the rule of faith).
.
It's not really a different issue if being the rule of faith is an inherent part of being pope, and Cardinal Billot says that it is. To separate the two would be like saying, "I accept that that shape is a triangle, but I don't accept that it has three sides." Since a lot of people didn't accept Paul VI as their rule of faith in 1962, they didn't peacefully accept him as the pope. And certainly he wasn't accepted peacefully in the way that John XXIII was accepted peacefully by the whole Church, who had no clue what lay in store for them in 1958. :(
.
I'm not saying that's a clear slam-dunk argument. I'm not 100% behind it myself. I'm more offering it as a possible answer to the question of whether Paul VI received UPA. It's certainly an interesting fact that John XXIII apparently received UPA and did not come out openly as a heretic the way Paul VI did, who did not receive the same acceptance that John XXIII had. It looks like there may have been some supernatural force restraining John XXIII from going too far, which did not restrain Paul VI. But these are probably things we won't know until the last day.
.
Regarding the latter, he acts as the rule of faith when his teachings are magisterial (ie., universality one both time and space); when he teaches at the level of the authentic magisterium (which is not actually magisterial at all, for lack of temporal universality, or contradiction of same), he is not acting as a rule of faith, but as a private doctor (even when he cloaks his errors under the guise of council, encyclical, more proprietary, etc).
.
This is yet another discussion :laugh1: but my short answer is that a real pope is always acting as the rule of faith when he teaches the whole Church, no matter through what medium or in what format, and does not (and cannot) lead the Church astray in those circuмstances. Cf. Cardinal Billot: "For it would be the same thing for the Church to adhere to a false pope, as it would be to adhere to a false rule of faith, since the pope is the living rule which the Church must follow in believing and always in fact follows."
-
Since a lot of people didn't accept Paul VI as their rule of faith in 1962, they didn't peacefully accept him as the pope.
[citation needed]
-
[citation needed]
Yeah, I was thinking mainly about the bishops in the council, mainly the conservatives. They knew Paul VI was a liberal and had serious concerns about what direction he would take the Council in. I wasn't so much referring to the typical layman in the pew.
-
Yeah, I was thinking mainly about the bishops in the council, mainly the conservatives. They knew Paul VI was a liberal and had serious concerns about what direction he would take the Council in. I wasn't so much referring to the typical layman in the pew.
Every council had its critics. Did any of those bishops deny he was pope?
-
Cardinal Siri could have been elected. From the moment Pope John XXIII or Pope Paul VI took over, universal acceptance would apply. Cardinal Billot's principle is simple: from the time in which a particular candidate is universally accepted, we cannot raise any possible doubt about a defective election. But a doubt about an earlier completed election that still remains in effect would be such a doubt. Hence, such a doubt cannot exist and the acceptance would either heal it in the root or show infallibly the required condition (i.e. the vacancy of the See) prior to the elevation of the now universally accepted candidate. Granted that the Popes were accepted by Cardinal Siri himself (as many of his public statements make evident), it is obvious that their elections could not have been invalid on that count.
-
Cardinal Siri could have been elected. From the moment Pope John XXIII or Pope Paul VI took over, universal acceptance would apply.
I don’t buy it. As soon as the duly-elected candidate accepts, he becomes pope. If a subsequent acceptance could effectively create a new pope, it would mean deposing the first one ... which only God can do. Universal Acceptance is criteriological and not ontological.
-
Every council had its critics. Did any of those bishops deny he was pope?
Yeti won't answer your question because he dislikes its essential unanswerability, at least in the affirmative.
He would have us all believe, evidently as he does, that in its visible dimension, the Catholic Church is an edifice where nothing is necessarily what it seems. Its public administration is a charade concealing governance by a succession of winks and nods between prelates whose true beliefs are known to none but the Select Few—Yeti being one, n'est-ce pas?—precisely as if it were a simulacrum of the way the United States is governed.
Surely this is the destination toward which sedevacantism tends.
-
Every council had its critics. Did any of those bishops deny he was pope?
.
I disagree that every council has had its critics. Catholics accept the teachings of general councils as part of the magisterium. The problem with Vatican II is that its teachings are heretical. The people who accept and embrace Vatican II are the ones who believe in ecuмenism, religious liberty, freedom of conscience, moral relativism, and universal salvation. The people who have reservations about Vatican II are the ones who teach their children the Baltimore Catechism, who pray the rosary, go to confession frequently, fear Hell, and want to convert all non-Catholics.