Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Thursday on April 08, 2012, 04:55:16 PM
-
Cardinal Siri and The Dissent of Genoa
In 1938 Pope Pius XI was quoted as saying "When today the Pope dies, you'll get another one tomorrow, because the Church continues. It would be a much bigger tragedy, if Cardinal Pacelli dies, because there is only one. I pray every day, God may send another one into one of our seminaries, but as of today, there is only one in this world."
After the death of Pius XI, Cardinal Pacelli would become Pope Pius XII, and in 1953, he too would endorse a man for the papacy, 46-year-old Giuseppe Siri, Archbishop of Genoa. As Pius XII made Siri a Cardinal, placing the red hat on his head, a reporter in attendance remarked “this is an historic moment, the Pope meets the next Pope.” In fact, Siri wrote in his now published personal diary, “Pius XII said I had to succeed him, and was preparing for me the same system that Pius XI had prepared for him.”
Local clergy in Genoa also testify that in the years before the 1958 Conclave, Siri was “seriously preparing himself to succeed Pius XII by keeping up with his languages and studying to remain abreast of all the necessary branches of knowledge.”
What happened then, for those who don’t know, was that on the first day of the 1958 Conclave, 5 minutes of white smoke(1) billowed from atop the Sistine Chapel signaling that a new Pope had been elected. But the new Pope never appeared, and two days later Cardinal Angelo Roncalli arrived on the balcony in St. Peter’s as Pope John XXIII, an unlikely choice for the Holy Ghost but the ideal one for the Communist~Masonic infiltrators and their backers. Roncalli, a Freemason(2), even had the all-seeing-eye engraved on his pectoral cross.
As to who was elected 2 days prior, the evidence points to Cardinal Siri, whose pontificate was suppressed to clear the way for Vatican II and the new mass. And the changes started almost immediately after the Conclave while Siri, the lawful Pope, was more or less confined to his diocese of Genoa. Recently, this idea has been ridiculed buy some who produced pictures of Cardinal Siri and John Paul II together as well as Siri saying the new mass. It’s hard to imagine how one could take these arguments seriously as a standard photo op is rarely a place where people show their true cards, but nonetheless it prompted a more thorough investigation of Cardinal Siri’s legacy in Genoa to gauge just how much Siri accepted these things.
Before looking at Siri’s record in Genoa, let me point out that the two biggest objections to Cardinal Siri having been elected pope is that he celebrated the new mass and that he acknowledged the other Popes. I’d answer that his acknowledgment of the other Popes was superficial, and that he really had no use for the new mass even though he did celebrate it on at least one occasion. Instead of debating pictures though, let’s hear what the Genoese have to say, after all, he was their archbishop for over 40 years. And why not start with a bit of testimony from a disgruntled Genoese priest who entered the seminary in 1964 and served for 40 years until his recent banishment. Father Paolo Farinello, who has no love for Cardinal Siri or for tradition writes in his 2007 book,
“Cardinal Siri, in fact, has never hidden his denigration of the Council and the liturgical reform in particular. In any way he obstructs its implementation in the diocese … We (the seminarians) were trembling with the spirit of the council and each time he (Siri) castrated our passionate enthusiasm by ensuring us that it would take fifty years to remedy the Vatican … He inoculated us unsuspecting with the suspicion that Pope Paul VI was not an orthodox Pope.”
Farinello writes in another article more recently,
“Siri told us ‘do not say the new mass in my diocese, I did not vote for these changes.’”
Notice in the first excerpt that he says we were “inoculated unsuspecting that Paul VI was not an orthodox Pope” From this we can infer that Siri was actively resisting the changes in the Church but was doing so covertly, as opposed to his contemporary Archbishop Lefebvre, founder of the SSPX, who did so in the open. There are several reasons why Siri would take this approach, one would be his proximity to the seat of power in Rome and his chance to become Pope at a future conclave. Secondly, he saw the struggle for the Catholic Church as a long term affair that was not going to be settled in his lifetime.
But let’s look at some other records in order to put the idea that Siri accepted Vatican II and the new popes to rest for good. An exchange between Cardinal Siri and Cardinal Sebastiano Baccio (who appears on many lists of Freemasons in the Vatican ) was published recently in the Italian daily, Il Stampa,
"They say that once the old curial Cardinal, Sebastiano Baggio, prefect of the powerful Congregation for Bishops in the last phase of the pontificate of Paul VI and the beginning of that of John Paul II, accused Cardinal Siri of growing his seminarians and priests as an island separate from the body of the Italian Church, and that this was not taken into account when they were made bishops. ‘Yes, it's true’ - Siri would respond – ‘we are an island, but my own I taught to swim.’"
And yet another quote from the Italian publication, Vatican Insider,
"Under Siri, the most faithful and authoritative interpreter of the pontificate of Pius XII, Genoa became the stronghold of the defense of Christianity and the cardinal point of reference for a church closer to tradition than innovation, leading it to its isolation from the rest of the country, particularly after the Council."
And there is no shortage of quotes from Siri himself, in his interviews with Benny Lai, for example he said that Vatican II “was the worst mistake in history.” He said it would “take the Church 50 years to recover from the pontificate of John XXIII” and many other statements that reveal his true feelings regarding the new “popes” and there innovations.
So my advice to those trying to grapple with the apparent inconsistency with the photographs of Siri above and the thesis that Siri was the lawful pope, is to ponder Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai’s response when Henry Kissinger’s asked his thoughts about the French revolution, “it’s too early to tell.” It’s now been forty odd years since Vatican II and the promulgation of Pope Paul VI’s new mass, and the trend towards novelties is long behind us. The traditional seminaries of the SSPX are full to the brim with new vocations and many mainstream Catholics are abandoning their scandal ridden churches for independent traditional parishes, meanwhile, in Italy, a former Siri disciple was just promoted to the See of Venice, a See that produced 3 popes in the last hundred years. And there are the other Siri disciples recently appointed to key positions in the Vatican, Cardinal Bagnasco, President of the Italian Bishops Conference (CEI), Mauro Piacenza, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, and Domenico Calcagno, President of the Apostolic Administration of Assets. Did Cardinal Siri teach his men to swim in the flood of infiltration and modernism with the long range view that they would be positioned to take back the reigns of power when the tide turned against the usurpers? Word from Italy certainly suggests so. And perhaps it will be Cardinal Siri of Genoa, unknown to the outside world throughout his pontificate, who gets the last laugh when the best laid plans of the Anti-Church crumble like the Tower of Babel.
(1) Footage of the 1958 white smoke http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQp00j4H3Kg
(2) November 12, 2002 Portugal Daily reports that “Virgilio Guito, former head of the Italian Grande Oriente Masonic Lodges, in a statement published by the French newspaper “30 Days”, said: It seems that Pope John XXIII has been initiated in Paris, and participated in the works of the Lodges in Istanbul.”
-
Cardini Siri fell for Vatican II and the consequent reforms hook, line, and sinker.
-
?!
Did you read what he said about the Council? Did you read about the role played by Siri and Ottiavanni at the Council? Did you read what was written by his own seminarians in the article above?
-
?!
Did you read what he said about the Council? Did you read about the role played by Siri and Ottiavanni at the Council? Did you read what was written by his own seminarians in the article above?
Read the article in Tradition in Action about Cardinal Siri.
-
Ah I see. Any idea who runs that site?
They don't believe the Siri thesis because he didn't punch JPII in the face when he came to Genoa.
-
Cardini Siri fell for Vatican II and the consequent reforms hook, line, and sinker.
sigh... :facepalm:
Do people like you and John Vennari honestly think that the occult secret societies and international bankers that finance and use them were going to allow Cardinal Siri to parade around Genoa for the next 30 years and announce to the world that he was elected pope, that these men are usurpers and that Catholics should disobey. That's just infantile reasoning.
Five years after overturning the Papal Election these same secret occult forces blew the President's head off in broad daylight in front of an obelisk in Dallas and proceeded to tell the world that some controlled little patsy got one hit threw a growth of trees that did all the damage to the governor and President while ending up pristine on a stretcher.
They also had President Lincoln's head blew off in a theatre full of people, probably poisoned president Harding on the train, because he was against a central bank in the U.S. There was no autopsy. They said it was a "heart attack". And you've seen what they did to Hussein, Kaddafei et al...
These people/sects who have control of almost every government on the planet today and the Vatican institution don't play games. They conspire, they kill and they hold black masses where they sacrifice young children to their God Lucifer. You're dealing with people who have supernatural forces protecting and guiding them through the permissive will of God because of the sins of men.
Listen to what Malichi says in this excellent video I will buy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQp00j4H3Kg&feature=relmfu
Especially 5 minutes on.
"The election of Jean XXIII was illegitimate" [null, void, worthless]...
"It was willed and PLANNED for by forces alien to the Holy Spirit."...
"It is completely ridiculous to say that any cardinal would have been elected."
-"Cardinal" Tisserant, Freemason and Dean (Head) of the 1958 Conclave
Siri was threatened. The Vatican itself may have been threatened. And the Luciferian psychopaths who run the world today don't bluff.
-
Cardinal Siri went along with the revolution during many many many years of his life. Don't make excuses for him. He ought to have been willing to die for the sake of the truth.
-
He ought to have been willing to die for the sake of the truth.
This is what I think and I believe is a valid point. The endless reading into the depths of whatever one can find to justify their notion that Card. Siri 'may' have been a pope in exile is, for me, to far fetched.
If it is true, we will one day find out; but since its impossible to know one way or the other, I would rather spend my time researching something more fruitful. Even if you could prove that this was the case, assuming you're already a 'sedevecantist', where does this get you; what benefit is there in researching this, apart from being able to say, 'aha!- I've found out something!" Great- in the meantime we all still recognize the errors of the Modernists too.
-
Cardinal Siri went along with the revolution during many many many years of his life. Don't make excuses for him. He ought to have been willing to die for the sake of the truth.
Perhaps he was willing to die but they would count on that. Maybe he was not willing to put the others that were threatened along with him in the same position. They could have threatened to kill his whole extended family, kill every bishop behind the Iron Curtain, bomb the Vatican etc...
You don't know. These people are capable of anything. See JFK and 9/11.
They threaten, they kill, it's what they do.
-
He ought to have been willing to die for the sake of the truth.
This is what I think and I believe is a valid point. The endless reading into the depths of whatever one can find to justify their notion that Card. Siri 'may' have been a pope in exile is, for me, to far fetched.
If it is true, we will one day find out; but since its impossible to know one way or the other, I would rather spend my time researching something more fruitful. Even if you could prove that this was the case, assuming you're already a 'sedevecantist', where does this get you; what benefit is there in researching this, apart from being able to say, 'aha!- I've found out something!" Great- in the meantime we all still recognize the errors of the Modernists too.
It gets you to the truth of what happened. The explanation for how we ended up here. Yes, you recognize the errors of the modernists but you(or the SSPX position/if that's not you) assume they're in good faith. Which is an absolutely false assumption. Thses men are in the ultimate of bad faith, are evil and can't be trusted. And the Siri Thesis spells out exactly why they can't be trusted. They're usurpers WHO KNOW [/b] they're in bad faith.
I would be willing to bet you that the Third Secret uses the term "anti-pope" will be installed or something to that effect. And that he will call and "evil council". Would not be surprised if that's the gist of the Third Secret and circuмstantial evidence points to this.
-
Those who claimed to have read the Third Secret of Fatima never said anything abot the word "antipope" being contained in the Secret.
-
Those who claimed to have read the Third Secret of Fatima never said anything abot the word "antipope" being contained in the Secret.
Here is the relevant quote from Malichi Martin and the original article Fr. Kramer wrote:
A Pope Under the Control of Satan?
Malachi Martin, in his last interview on the Art Bell Show, spoke of an Anti-Pope. There was a caller calling in from Australia, and he said that a Jesuit had revealed to him that in the Third Secret it is revealed that there will be, as it were, a pope who was entirely in the control of the devil. Malachi answered, "that sounds like the verbatim words of the Secret."
http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr80/cr80pg32.asp
That's the link to Fr. Kramer's article with the Malichi Martin quote.
Hmmmm.... "McFly is anybody home?"
Coupled with:
"But let me continue examining Fr. Kramer’s article. Having assured us that Ratzinger only used a “mental reservation” and was not lying, Fr. Kramer then relates to us the anecdote of a “seminary professor, who is a close friend of Pope John Paul II, and who also knows personally Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger” (p. 36), who, upon reading the Vatican version of the “Third Secret” on June 26, 2000, had the (very reasonable!) impression that this was not the Third Secret, for that would be impossible. So far, so good, but here comes the most interesting part:
And so he went to the Vatican, he visited Cardinal Ratzinger, and he confronted him. He did not mince his words. He said, “This is impossible! This cannot possibly be the entire Third Secret!” And he insisted that Ratzinger answer him yes or no. “Is this the whole thing? Is this the whole thing, or isn’t it? It cannot be; now you tell me!” Ratzinger admitted, “Truly, that was not all of it.” … He pressed on further for an answer, he would not back off. And he demanded, “What is in the Secret? If that’s not all of it, well, what is there?” Ratzinger’s answer makes it clear. There’s no longer any mystery why they have kept it hidden for so many years…. Ratzinger said that in the Third Secret, Our Lady warns that there will be an evil council. And She warned against the changes: She warned against making changes in the liturgy; changes in the Mass. This is explicitly set forth in the Third Secret.”
[The Fatima Crusader, Summer 2005 issue (no. 80), p. 36]
At this point, you should be asking yourself whether you’re waking or dreaming. Did Fr. Kramer just write that “Cardinal” Ratzinger himself has admitted that the Third Secret warned against an evil council and changes to be made to the Mass? In other words, did Ratzinger just admit that the Third Secret condemns Vatican II and the New Mass?
You’d expect Fr. Kramer to lose it at this point and condemn the pharisaical, blasphemous, heretical, deceptive, impious, and Fatima-hating Joseph Ratzinger in the strongest of terms! So Ratzinger knows the truth and deliberately hides it! He is covering up the true Third Secret and is continuing his complicity in the big Fatima cover-up and in building and maintaining the New Church! He knows that Our Lady condemns him, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, and his wicked works! Having read The Devil’s Final Battle, one would think that this is the last straw Fr. Kramer needed to definitively convict Ratzinger as a pertinacious enemy of the Faith and of Fatima.
But what does Fr. Kramer do instead? He merely notes:
However, men like Cardinal Ratzinger believe that the word of the Second Vatican Council is equivalent to the word of God. They cannot believe that there was any evil in the Council. And so they choose not to believe the Message of Fatima. And this is why Cardinal Ratzinger made a suggestion that the apparition of the Lady of Fatima is something conjured up in the imagination of Sister Lucy.
[p. 36]
This is unbelievable! At long last, Fr. Kramer had all he needed to expose the fraud that is Ratzinger, and what does he do? He proceeds to find excuses for him! And lame ones at that! Ratzinger simply “cannot believe” that Vatican II is the council mentioned in the Third Secret? Is Fr. Kramer kidding?? And I suppose Ratzinger also sincerely “cannot believe” that the changes to be made to the Mass could refer to the “banal on-the-spot product” (Ratzinger’s own words) of the New Mass? If you can believe this, perhaps I could sell you my little 2001 KIA for a good price….
Fr. Kramer is acting as though Benedict XVI were in good faith about this, an utter absurdity if there ever was one. After all that he exposed about Ratzinger in the Devil’s Final Battle, the last thing you could say is that Ratzinger is “innocently misled” about all this.
Which brings me to another important point. What we just read here was the long-awaited admission by a high-ranking Vatican official that the Third Secret of Fatima, penned in the 1930’s, is about what we all more or less assumed it was about, namely, a heavenly warning against the wicked Second Vatican Council, the New Mass, and the loss of Faith resulting therefrom (cf. The Devil's Final Battle, pp. 32-33, 167-170). So, let me ask you something: how come this hasn’t made the biggest headlines in the Fatima Crusader and similar publications? This is, essentially, the story they were waiting for: the true content of the Third Secret! Why is it not the top story at www.fatima.org or at least in the pages of the Fatima Crusader? Why is this buried in the middle of a lengthy article in an issue opposing sedevacantism? Why have other similar publications not picked up on this (at least I'm not aware that they have)? This is practically the mother of all news stories, the smoking gun! Short of perhaps St. Pius X coming back to life and putting an end to the Novus Ordo church, this is the story they (and also we sedevacantists) had been waiting for!" From:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Oct/oct7mdi.htm
Put 2+2 together. Use the mind that God gave you. Think...
-
I would be willing to bet you that the Third Secret uses the term "anti-pope" will be installed or something to that effect. And that he will call and "evil council". Would not be surprised if that's the gist of the Third Secret and circuмstantial evidence points to this.
And herein lies the issue I take with the Siri Thesis. It will forever remain just that, a Thesis; and the same with sedevecantism, in my opinion, but that is another matter.
There is no denying: only the future will clarify all of this horrible mess we're in; and I, for one, am not willing to bet my faith on something so obscure.
-
Here's the two articles I referenced without the excerpts. Read them and come to your own conclusions:
http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr80/cr80pg32.asp
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Oct/oct7mdi.htm
And I heard that interview on Art Bell's "Coast to Coast AM" the night he said that a Pope under the control of Satan was, "very close" to the Third Secret. One day I'll try to find that program and post that exchange.
What could "BE CLOSE" to that. "ALMOST VERBATIM". Think...
The secret was to be released to the world by 1960.
What events happened between October 1958 and 1965. Think.. Deduce... Reason... :reporter: :detective: :idea: :faint: :dwarf:
I used to think that the Blessed Mother made a mistake in saying to release the 3rd secret in 1960 because she would know it would be too late. But she did not. She said "by 1960". It could have been released anytime before that even by the Bishop of Fatima. But it was God's will that we undergo this punishment. She said no later than 1960 because being the Queen of Prophets she knew or was in the know through her Son what was going to take place in 1958 and 1962-65 so she picked the year right in between those two events. Also the year the Council was announced was 1959, and it began preparations in 1960. She knew people like us would be able to figure out one day what was in her secret.
Especially after given proof that the Vatican lied in 2000 about the supposed "Third Secret".
-
I'm an idiot:
"Malachi Martin, in his last interview on the Art Bell Show"
I'll have to try to see if it's on line for free and than post it. Fr. Kramer said it was the "last" interview. I should read closer what I post. :facepalm:
-
I would be willing to bet you that the Third Secret uses the term "anti-pope" will be installed or something to that effect. And that he will call and "evil council". Would not be surprised if that's the gist of the Third Secret and circuмstantial evidence points to this.
And herein lies the issue I take with the Siri Thesis. It will forever remain just that, a Thesis; and the same with sedevecantism, in my opinion, but that is another matter.
There is no denying: only the future will clarify all of this horrible mess we're in; and I, for one, am not willing to bet my faith on something so obscure.
" only the future will clarify all of this horrible mess we're in"
I agree. But God did give us minds and reason. We can speculate. I for one like my chances of being correct BUT don't care whether I'm correct or not. If I see a Holy Monarch and Angelic Pope one day I'll be happy.
"I, for one, am not willing to bet my faith on something so obscure"
Don't understand this. The Faith is the Faith no matter what thesis is true. None of this changes the deposit of Faith we need to believe to save our souls. I don't think God will judge us on whether we figure out the correct resolution for how we got into this crisis. I just have mine and I'm content with it, for now.
-
Cardinal Siri went along with the revolution during many many many years of his life. Don't make excuses for him. He ought to have been willing to die for the sake of the truth.
Point 1. Siri was unknown outside of Italy until long after his death.
Point 2. There is considerable evidence/testimony that he did damage control and held onto Genoa as the last stand against modernism.
Point 3. Traditionalists are gaining ground now but there was virtually no resistance to these changes by the vast majority of Catholics for many years. Maybe you forget how popular John Paul II was in the 1980s.
Point 4. Again, what makes you think the only factor he had to consider was his own personal safety? You can't read one article and come to a conclusion about him.
Point 5. Lefebvre was never going to become Pope, and to this day the traditionalists groups are nowhere near the levers of power in Rome, on the other hand there are several of Siri's men in positions of power and influence at the Vatican.
What did Archbishop Pintinello, the highest ranking clergyman not to sign the Vatican II docuмents, say when asked whether Siri was Pope?
"He was the best Pope." (!)
-
Cardinal Siri went along with the revolution during many many many years of his life. Don't make excuses for him. He ought to have been willing to die for the sake of the truth.
Point 1. Siri was unknown outside of Italy until long after his death.
Point 2. There is considerable evidence/testimony that he did damage control and held onto Genoa as the last stand against modernism.
Point 3. Traditionalists are gaining ground now but there was virtually no resistance to these changes by the vast majority of Catholics for many years. Maybe you forget how popular John Paul II was in the 1980s.
Point 4. Again, what makes you think the only factor he had to consider was his own personal safety? You can't read one article and come to a conclusion about him.
Point 5. Lefebvre was never going to become Pope, and to this day the traditionalists groups are nowhere near the levers of power in Rome, on the other hand there are several of Siri's men in positions of power and influence at the Vatican.
What did Archbishop Pintinello, the highest ranking clergyman not to sign the Vatican II docuмents, say when asked whether Siri was Pope?
"He was the best Pope." (!)
I am not so much concerned about whether he was elected pope or not. My main concern is that he went along with the VII revolution, whether by consent or silence.
-
My point is that he didn't really go along with it and that the people who say he did don't know very much about the man's 40 some years as archbishop of Genoa, or his role at the council. In comparison, Ron Paul doesn't start talking about Bush and company blowing up buildings or Obama's fake birth certificate but of course he knows the kind of stuff that is going on.
Siri's reputation is also largely in the hands of the usurpers so they can twist it to make it look like he wasn't against them. I have some books written in the seventies from commentators in Genoa and their picture of Siri is much different from what mainstream writers are saying about him now.
-
KofCTrad, thanks for posting that, but I already knew Our Lady of Fatima warned us of Vatican II in the Third Secret. I was saying the word "antipope" is not believed to have been used specifically in the Secret, though it doesn't matter anyway. Just because She never said there would be an antipope doesn't mean there wasn't one!
My point is that he didn't really go along with it and that the people who say he did don't know very much about the man's 40 some years as archbishop of Genoa, or his role at the council.
The problems still exist. The issue with the Siri thesis isn't really whether or not he was elected, which I concede was quite possible. The main issue is that you would have to be really weak to be elected, only to allow infiltrators to force you out of the picture, keep quiet about it, submit to others who were likely elected invalidly, and accept their new changes. If I were in that situation, I would either have said "No, I'm not doing it" and let them kill me, or wait for the right time, come out and tell the truth, and if I got killed for it so be it. What good is it to keep your life if you have to compromise your faith and risk going to hell? I'm not saying Siri is in hell, nor am I saying he was a bad person. I'm aware that he didn't agree with the changes, but he still went along with them all in the name of not having the courage to stand up to the infiltrators.
Celebrating the Novus Ordo Missae publicly is a prime example. Sure, he didn't like it, but he still celebrated it. It would be like me becoming a priest, being threatened if I didn't accept the NO, and then celebrating it. I could say "Oh, but I don't agree with it" all I want, but it wouldn't change the fact that I caved in to begin with! Compare that to what Archbishop LeFebvre did. They bribed him left and right, saying they would forgive him if he celebrated the NO just once, or if he used the New Rite of Consecration. He refused. He endured horrible persecution for it, but all that matters is that he didn't compromise his faith.
If Siri were elected, would accepting the changes have been enough to invalidate his Papacy? Probably not, as hard of a question as that is to answer. But that really isn't the issue. The point is the thesis just has too many problems to be deemed as acceptable.
-
My point is that he didn't really go along with it and that the people who say he did don't know very much about the man's 40 some years as archbishop of Genoa, or his role at the council.
The problems still exist. The issue with the Siri thesis isn't really whether or not he was elected, which I concede was quite possible.
That is the the thesis, the other issues can only be addressed after we conclude that he was elected and accepted the papacy. Once this is established the papacies of John XXIII Paul VI and JP are null and void.
The main issue is that you would have to be really weak to be elected, only to allow infiltrators to force you out of the picture, keep quiet about it, submit to others who were likely elected invalidly, and accept their new changes.
This is a valid question but we don't know what the threats were or what choices were open to him. Also, the usurpers had been planning this in great detail for a long long time, it's easy to say what could have been done in hindsight but he probably didn't know what was going on. Plus how many of the the other prelates who he thought were his friends were actually working for the other side and trying to deceive him.
If I were in that situation, I would either have said "No, I'm not doing it" and let them kill me, or wait for the right time, come out and tell the truth, and if I got killed for it so be it. What good is it to keep your life if you have to compromise your faith and risk going to hell?
Again we don't know what the threats were or what choices he had.
I'm not saying Siri is in hell, nor am I saying he was a bad person. I'm aware that he didn't agree with the changes, but he still went along with them all in the name of not having the courage to stand up to the infiltrators.
Franco Bellegrandi quoted a high ranking mason who he met before the Conclave, who said "the Church is in our hands." Life isn't always like hollywood movies with the hero defying all odds to overcome the forces of darkness, its very possible that he encountered an impossible situation.
-
Why was the government so paranoid about Jim Garrison's investigation that the FBI was bugging his office. Mr. X in that movie is based on a true person. He was the only man to successfully bring about a trial for the murder of the President. Why so paranoid about looking for the truth?
Why are no mainstream government officials lending support to the sherrif's investigation of all of Obama's fake docuмents? Why do so few people care or are willing to pursue the case?
Why doesn't Arlen Specter, who has already had life threatening cancer, come clean about the Warren Commision and single bullet theory?
Why are only "consiracy theorists" talking about the truth of 9/11?
Why are there no official government leaders who are willing to point to the Federal Reserve, accept Ron Paul, as the source of inflation, booms and busts and a private, for profit central bank?
How did they appear to make it look like Cardinal Siri accepted Vatican II?
I don't know the answer to these questions and don't pretend to but you should not either?
Here's some things to chew on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkKbE9qCzQo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1WqQi1bEtg
-
Why was the government so paranoid about Jim Garrison's investigation that the FBI was bugging his office. Mr. X in that movie is based on a true person. He was the only man to successfully bring about a trial for the murder of the President. Why so paranoid about looking for the truth?
Why are no mainstream government officials lending support to the sherrif's investigation of all of Obama's fake docuмents? Why do so few people care or are willing to pursue the case?
Why doesn't Arlen Specter, who has already had life threatening cancer, come clean about the Warren Commision and single bullet theory?
Why are only "consiracy theorists" talking about the truth of 9/11?
Why are there no official government leaders who are willing to point to the Federal Reserve, accept Ron Paul, as the source of inflation, booms and busts and a private, for profit central bank?
How did they appear to make it look like Cardinal Siri accepted Vatican II?
I don't know the answer to these questions and don't pretend to but you should not either?
Here's some things to chew on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkKbE9qCzQo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1WqQi1bEtg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USGSOViaulc&feature=related
That's what they do to people who defy them. The Tsar had his whole family killed.
-
Very interesting, Thurs. ! :cheers:
I'd love to hear more. It is very heartening to hear there are some of Card. Siri's men around.
-
A Pope Under the Control of Satan?
Who knows? But I never tire of reminding people that 300 exorcists were told they may not visit St. Peter's after already having made arrangements. (2005, I think.) Gabriel Amorth said so in an interview in 30 Daysif I recall the source correctly.
I think it was just a visit to the regular Wednesday Audience outside in the plaza..
Then remember old Abp. Milingo, the exorcist who gave talks warning about satanists in the Vatican, and look what happened to him :shocked:...(for KofCTrad) I have my suspicions about how he got so messed up.
-
Very interesting, Thurs. ! :cheers:
I'd love to hear more. It is very heartening to hear there are some of Card. Siri's men around.
From a book on the state of the Church of Genoa and Italy from 1976. Author is neither for against Siri. Translated from Italian.
"… But the serious question for him (Siri) was the fact that every day the local and national press spoke of the protest of the Church in Genoa. From Rome they were content to established that not only the diocese but also more openly rigidly anti-conciliar were affected by the dispute. Not wanting to use more methods of discipline they leave Cardinal Siri be that no bishop could more legitimately, second to the texts of the council. Cardinal Siri was so good at the game against Rome they did not want to push the bishop into schism by preventing anti-conciliar gestures. Whoever would bother to ask the Bishops' Conference news on the matter were told to be patient because Cardinal Siri of Genoa would soon be gone. How many times was it announced that the pope had asked Cardinal Siri of Genoa to leave! But Cardinal Siri after the ouster from the presidency of the bishops' conference did not want to lose the last place with which he had left to lead the battle against the church council. He still had friends in Rome, was linked to many bishops who did not approve of the line of the secretariat of the Conference of Bishops. From all over the world came to him consent to his pastoral letters. He always felt at the center of the anti-concliar, worldwide restoration movement, a kind of anti-pope in pectore."
-
The Catholic Church Conquers Genoa
from January
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/bagnasco-genova-papa-el-papa-pope-11963/
-
My point is that he didn't really go along with it
This statement shows me that it is futile to continue this conversation.
-
III. Valid Elections
However, the claim is made: "We are still in the period of 'sede vacante'; no valid pope has been elected since Pope Pius XII."
To this statement a few things can be said. First, a question: Who has the responsibility of saying that the pope’s election was doubtful? The layman in the street? A Bishop? The College of Cardinals? A Council? There is no clear answer to this question. So, just because someone says an election is invalid, this does not make the election invalid. Have there been elections to the papacy since Pope Pius XII? Yes, there have been 4 elections to the Chair of Peter.
How can we look at these elections? Certain sedevacantists say that they are invalid because the person elected was not a legitimate candidate for the office. For argument’s sake, let us briefly entertain this possibility to show why it in no way would jeopardize the last four pontificates. I defer to the theologian Cardinal Billot, the Doctor St. Alphonsus De Liguori, and the great Benedictine Abbot, Prosper Guéranger. They give the following rule: "The peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope by the whole Church is a sign and effect of a valid election."
Cardinal Billot (the great Jesuit theologian of the first half of this century) states:
"Finally, what one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy." And this is based on the Church’s attribute of Indefectibility as defined by "the promise of the infallible Providence of Christ [that] ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ and ‘Behold, I am with you all days even unto the end of the world.’ For the adherence of the Church to a false pontiff would be the same thing as its adherence to a false rule of Faith, since the pope is the living rule of the Faith that the Church has to follow, and that in fact, She always follows."
He continues:
"God some times can allow that the vacancy of the Apostolic See be for a certain time. He can allow also that a doubt may come concerning the legitimacy of such-and-such an election, but He cannot allow that the whole Church accept as a pontiff one who is not really legitimate. Therefore, from the moment that the pope is accepted by the Church and is united to Her as the head to the body, we can no longer raise the doubt on the possible bias of election or the possible lack of the necessary conditions for legitimacy. Because this adherence of the Church heals in its root all faults committed at the moment of election, and proves infallibly the existence of all the conditions required."
For example, if a Cardinal would have "bought" the papacy (by simony), and the Church accepts the election, that person would be validly pope. There is strong evidence to suggest that this, in fact, did happen with the election of Pope Alexander VI.
St. Alphonsus states that:
"It doesn’t matter that in past centuries some pontiff has been elected in an illegitimate fashion or has taken possession of the pontificate by fraud: it suffices that he has been accepted after as pope by all the Church, for this fact he has become the true pontiff."
St. Alphonsus follows the principle that if the whole Church, and mainly the clergy of Rome accept this man as pope, the man is the pope.
Another authority to which we will refer is Dom Prosper Guéranger, the Abbot of Solemnes, and the great 19th century authority on the Papacy, whose study, Pontifical Monarchy, helped Pius IX to make the definition of Papal Infallibility. In his Liturgical Year, for the feast of Pope St. Silverius, whose election to the pontificate was doubtful, Dom Guéranger writes,
"The inevitable play of human passions, interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while render uncertain the transmission of spiritual power. But when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put in possession of, her liberty, acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself." (Abbot Guéranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Vol XII, pg. 188)
Silverius’ pontificate was doubtful because it was forced by the hand of an Arian Emperor. Abbot Guéranger holds that the Roman Clergy would have been free to reject the pope elected as an impostor, since he was thus put in office; but because Silverius was a good and worthy man, and because he was unaware of the violence and evil which brought about his election, they accepted him — and by that acceptance, he was the true Pope.
Therefore, by this principle and the doctrine of the Perpetuity of the Papacy, John XXIII, Paul VI, John-Paul I, and John-Paul II, have been elected to the Chair of Peter, regardless of their supposed illegitimacy. Because they were accepted by the Visible Church as pontiffs, they became true popes.
http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/indefectibility.htm#2
-
Aha, so you think the last 5 popes are legit but condemn Siri because he "went along with their changes."
-
That is not correct, Ecclesia. Read what Pope Paul IV said in 1559:
"- Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.
"- It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.
-
Aha, so you think the last 5 popes are legit but condemn Siri because he "went along with their changes."
They are legitimate popes, but their words and actions are still condemnable.
-
That is not correct, Ecclesia. Read what Pope Paul IV said in 1559:
"- Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.
"- It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.
cuм has no canonical force.
-
Very interesting, Thurs. ! :cheers:
I'd love to hear more. It is very heartening to hear there are some of Card. Siri's men around.
From a book on the state of the Church of Genoa and Italy from 1976. Author is neither for against Siri. Translated from Italian.
"… But the serious question for him (Siri) was the fact that every day the local and national press spoke of the protest of the Church in Genoa. From Rome they were content to established that not only the diocese but also more openly rigidly anti-conciliar were affected by the dispute. Not wanting to use more methods of discipline they leave Cardinal Siri be that no bishop could more legitimately, second to the texts of the council. Cardinal Siri was so good at the game against Rome they did not want to push the bishop into schism by preventing anti-conciliar gestures. Whoever would bother to ask the Bishops' Conference news on the matter were told to be patient because Cardinal Siri of Genoa would soon be gone. How many times was it announced that the pope had asked Cardinal Siri of Genoa to leave! But Cardinal Siri after the ouster from the presidency of the bishops' conference did not want to lose the last place with which he had left to lead the battle against the church council. He still had friends in Rome, was linked to many bishops who did not approve of the line of the secretariat of the Conference of Bishops. From all over the world came to him consent to his pastoral letters. He always felt at the center of the anti-concliar, worldwide restoration movement, a kind of anti-pope in pectore."
So, there is gathering evidence that rumors of Siri sitting back and doing nothing, are born of ignorance. Thanks, Thurs. And thanks to whomever has been translating this interesting information. It all seemed to dry up, about Siri, and it is awesome to get some fresh perspective.
-
That is not correct, Ecclesia. Read what Pope Paul IV said in 1559:
"- Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.
"- It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.
cuм has no canonical force.
And cuм dealt with the election of a heretic and not someone refusing the papacy because of pressure.
-
And cuм dealt with the election of a heretic
And that is precisely why it applies to John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, and Benedict XVI.
-
III. Valid Elections
However, the claim is made: "We are still in the period of 'sede vacante'; no valid pope has been elected since Pope Pius XII."
To this statement a few things can be said. First, a question: Who has the responsibility of saying that the pope’s election was doubtful? The layman in the street? A Bishop? The College of Cardinals? A Council? There is no clear answer to this question. So, just because someone says an election is invalid, this does not make the election invalid. Have there been elections to the papacy since Pope Pius XII? Yes, there have been 4 elections to the Chair of Peter.
How can we look at these elections? Certain sedevacantists say that they are invalid because the person elected was not a legitimate candidate for the office. For argument’s sake, let us briefly entertain this possibility to show why it in no way would jeopardize the last four pontificates. I defer to the theologian Cardinal Billot, the Doctor St. Alphonsus De Liguori, and the great Benedictine Abbot, Prosper Guéranger. They give the following rule: "The peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope by the whole Church is a sign and effect of a valid election."
Cardinal Billot (the great Jesuit theologian of the first half of this century) states:
"Finally, what one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy." And this is based on the Church’s attribute of Indefectibility as defined by "the promise of the infallible Providence of Christ [that] ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ and ‘Behold, I am with you all days even unto the end of the world.’ For the adherence of the Church to a false pontiff would be the same thing as its adherence to a false rule of Faith, since the pope is the living rule of the Faith that the Church has to follow, and that in fact, She always follows."
He continues:
"God some times can allow that the vacancy of the Apostolic See be for a certain time. He can allow also that a doubt may come concerning the legitimacy of such-and-such an election, but He cannot allow that the whole Church accept as a pontiff one who is not really legitimate. Therefore, from the moment that the pope is accepted by the Church and is united to Her as the head to the body, we can no longer raise the doubt on the possible bias of election or the possible lack of the necessary conditions for legitimacy. Because this adherence of the Church heals in its root all faults committed at the moment of election, and proves infallibly the existence of all the conditions required."
For example, if a Cardinal would have "bought" the papacy (by simony), and the Church accepts the election, that person would be validly pope. There is strong evidence to suggest that this, in fact, did happen with the election of Pope Alexander VI.
St. Alphonsus states that:
"It doesn’t matter that in past centuries some pontiff has been elected in an illegitimate fashion or has taken possession of the pontificate by fraud: it suffices that he has been accepted after as pope by all the Church, for this fact he has become the true pontiff."
St. Alphonsus follows the principle that if the whole Church, and mainly the clergy of Rome accept this man as pope, the man is the pope.
Another authority to which we will refer is Dom Prosper Guéranger, the Abbot of Solemnes, and the great 19th century authority on the Papacy, whose study, Pontifical Monarchy, helped Pius IX to make the definition of Papal Infallibility. In his Liturgical Year, for the feast of Pope St. Silverius, whose election to the pontificate was doubtful, Dom Guéranger writes,
"The inevitable play of human passions, interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while render uncertain the transmission of spiritual power. But when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put in possession of, her liberty, acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself." (Abbot Guéranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Vol XII, pg. 188)
Silverius’ pontificate was doubtful because it was forced by the hand of an Arian Emperor. Abbot Guéranger holds that the Roman Clergy would have been free to reject the pope elected as an impostor, since he was thus put in office; but because Silverius was a good and worthy man, and because he was unaware of the violence and evil which brought about his election, they accepted him — and by that acceptance, he was the true Pope.
Therefore, by this principle and the doctrine of the Perpetuity of the Papacy, John XXIII, Paul VI, John-Paul I, and John-Paul II, have been elected to the Chair of Peter, regardless of their supposed illegitimacy. Because they were accepted by the Visible Church as pontiffs, they became true popes.
http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/indefectibility.htm#2
Sigh... :facepalm:
Are you seriously to contend that the "faithful" are the legions of apostate Novus Ordo "Catholics" who have no vocations, don't go to Mass, (their novus Ordo "mass") and believe in every heresy under the sun? Don't think so. You're living in the apostacy. I would argue the true faithful are the Remnant, as foretold in the Bible who will be few at the end of time. In other words the underground Church who most certainly do not accept these Popes in deed while some giving lip service in word.
And cuм ex Apostolatus Officio certainly is still valid. It is cited in the 1917 code of canon law dealing with the issue of heretics holding office and is based in divine law not ecclesial law and therefore is true in perpetuity.
I still can't believe that people can look at the Vatican II Protestant Ecuмenical Conciliar Church and believe that it's a DEFENSE of the promises made by Christ to St. Peter and his successors in the office. Boggles the mind. :scratchchin: :confused1:
-
And cuм dealt with the election of a heretic
And that is precisely why it applies to John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, and Benedict XVI.
You are changing the subject.
-
And cuм ex Apostolatus Officio certainly is still valid. It is cited in the 1917 code of canon law dealing with the issue of heretics holding office and is based in divine law not ecclesial law and therefore is true in perpetuity.
Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).
Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
-
III. Valid Elections
However, the claim is made: "We are still in the period of 'sede vacante'; no valid pope has been elected since Pope Pius XII."
To this statement a few things can be said. First, a question: Who has the responsibility of saying that the pope’s election was doubtful? The layman in the street? A Bishop? The College of Cardinals? A Council? There is no clear answer to this question. So, just because someone says an election is invalid, this does not make the election invalid. Have there been elections to the papacy since Pope Pius XII? Yes, there have been 4 elections to the Chair of Peter.
How can we look at these elections? Certain sedevacantists say that they are invalid because the person elected was not a legitimate candidate for the office. For argument’s sake, let us briefly entertain this possibility to show why it in no way would jeopardize the last four pontificates. I defer to the theologian Cardinal Billot, the Doctor St. Alphonsus De Liguori, and the great Benedictine Abbot, Prosper Guéranger. They give the following rule: "The peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope by the whole Church is a sign and effect of a valid election."
Cardinal Billot (the great Jesuit theologian of the first half of this century) states:
"Finally, what one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy." And this is based on the Church’s attribute of Indefectibility as defined by "the promise of the infallible Providence of Christ [that] ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ and ‘Behold, I am with you all days even unto the end of the world.’ For the adherence of the Church to a false pontiff would be the same thing as its adherence to a false rule of Faith, since the pope is the living rule of the Faith that the Church has to follow, and that in fact, She always follows."
He continues:
"God some times can allow that the vacancy of the Apostolic See be for a certain time. He can allow also that a doubt may come concerning the legitimacy of such-and-such an election, but He cannot allow that the whole Church accept as a pontiff one who is not really legitimate. Therefore, from the moment that the pope is accepted by the Church and is united to Her as the head to the body, we can no longer raise the doubt on the possible bias of election or the possible lack of the necessary conditions for legitimacy. Because this adherence of the Church heals in its root all faults committed at the moment of election, and proves infallibly the existence of all the conditions required."
For example, if a Cardinal would have "bought" the papacy (by simony), and the Church accepts the election, that person would be validly pope. There is strong evidence to suggest that this, in fact, did happen with the election of Pope Alexander VI.
St. Alphonsus states that:
"It doesn’t matter that in past centuries some pontiff has been elected in an illegitimate fashion or has taken possession of the pontificate by fraud: it suffices that he has been accepted after as pope by all the Church, for this fact he has become the true pontiff."
St. Alphonsus follows the principle that if the whole Church, and mainly the clergy of Rome accept this man as pope, the man is the pope.
Another authority to which we will refer is Dom Prosper Guéranger, the Abbot of Solemnes, and the great 19th century authority on the Papacy, whose study, Pontifical Monarchy, helped Pius IX to make the definition of Papal Infallibility. In his Liturgical Year, for the feast of Pope St. Silverius, whose election to the pontificate was doubtful, Dom Guéranger writes,
"The inevitable play of human passions, interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while render uncertain the transmission of spiritual power. But when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put in possession of, her liberty, acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself." (Abbot Guéranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Vol XII, pg. 188)
Silverius’ pontificate was doubtful because it was forced by the hand of an Arian Emperor. Abbot Guéranger holds that the Roman Clergy would have been free to reject the pope elected as an impostor, since he was thus put in office; but because Silverius was a good and worthy man, and because he was unaware of the violence and evil which brought about his election, they accepted him — and by that acceptance, he was the true Pope.
Therefore, by this principle and the doctrine of the Perpetuity of the Papacy, John XXIII, Paul VI, John-Paul I, and John-Paul II, have been elected to the Chair of Peter, regardless of their supposed illegitimacy. Because they were accepted by the Visible Church as pontiffs, they became true popes.
http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/indefectibility.htm#2
Sigh... :facepalm:
Are you seriously to contend that the "faithful" are the legions of apostate Novus Ordo "Catholics" who have no vocations, don't go to Mass, (their novus Ordo "mass") and believe in every heresy under the sun? Don't think so. You're living in the apostacy. I would argue the true faithful are the Remnant, as foretold in the Bible who will be few at the end of time. In other words the underground Church who most certainly do not accept these Popes in deed while some giving lip service in word.
And cuм ex Apostolatus Officio certainly is still valid. It is cited in the 1917 code of canon law dealing with the issue of heretics holding office and is based in divine law not ecclesial law and therefore is true in perpetuity.
I still can't believe that people can look at the Vatican II Protestant Ecuмenical Conciliar Church and believe that it's a DEFENSE of the promises made by Christ to St. Peter and his successors in the office. Boggles the mind. :scratchchin: :confused1:
Firstly, nothing is part of the divine law unless it was revealed by Christ or his Apostles, what is part of the divine law cannot be added to. The Law cuм Ex was not a matter of faith or morals, it was added to the Canon Law which until 1917 was not Codified.
Secondly if the Law cuм ex was cited in the 1917 Code, then cite it. I have the 1917 Code of Canon Law in 2 different commentaries and it does not mention cuм Ex at all. Furthermore it states the same decree that Pope St. Pius X made and was cited by Ecclesia Militans.
I believe you have recieved faulty information.
-
So...Paul VI was not to be recognized as a true pope because the Holy Ghost allowed him to enter harmful things into the magisterium and liturgy....and we know the Holy Ghost, as a dogma, will not allow that with a true pope.
You are twisting the meaning of papal infallibility. This dogma pronounced at Vatican I was not meant to establish or determine whether the man sitting on the throne of Peter is a true pope; rather, it assumes that he is a true pope and that we can determine the dogmatic force of his teachings by the fulfilling of the necessary conditions.
-
So...Paul VI was not to be recognized as a true pope because the Holy Ghost allowed him to enter harmful things into the magisterium and liturgy....and we know the Holy Ghost, as a dogma, will not allow that with a true pope.
You are twisting the meaning of papal infallibility. This dogma pronounced at Vatican I was not meant to establish or determine whether the man sitting on the throne of Peter is a true pope; rather, it assumes that he is a true pope and that we can determine the dogmatic force of his teachings by the fulfilling of the necessary conditions.
I am not speaking of papal infallibility. I am speaking of the dogma that the Holy Ghost will not allow a true pope to approve of something that will go into the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium (which is pertains to the Church's infallibility). It is impossible. And when it does happen, we know for certain that the man is not a true pope. The Church said so. Argue with the Church.
Please provide me a reference for this dogma.
-
And cuм dealt with the election of a heretic
And that is precisely why it applies to John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, and Benedict XVI.
You are changing the subject.
No I'm not. It's true that all four are heretics. As for cuм not being canonically forceful, you are making excuses. Everything we post such as that you brush off as not being dogmatic. What position do you hold? FSSP?
-
And cuм dealt with the election of a heretic
And that is precisely why it applies to John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, and Benedict XVI.
You are changing the subject.
No I'm not. It's true that all four are heretics. As for cuм not being canonically forceful, you are making excuses. Everything we post such as that you brush off as not being dogmatic. What position do you hold? FSSP?
Watch your tongue boy. He is SSPX and I can vouch for that. His comment was true, he is aguing with Sirinites and you are changing the subject, bringing up a law that hasn't been in force for a few hundred years. The means of electing a Pope is through Human Law. What is promised to the Pope is that he cannot define anything on pain of not being Catholic to the whole Church. It doesn't mean anything he says must be true.
As for the past four Popes being Heretics, Materially they are, we agree on that. There has never been a pronouncement or a declaration that they incured the Ipso Facto excommunications, and thus they are not canonically excommunicated even if they are excommunicated in the internal forum.
I suggest you read the commentary I posted on the Code of Canon Law, read the part about Simony, if someone were to bribe their way into the Papacy it may be valid even though they and whomever they bribed would be ipso facto excommunicated. The excommunication would be internally since he would not declare himself to have incurred it.
Cupertino makes up 'dogmas' that exist in his own head. He doesn't know what the Universal(Everywhere and Every Time) Ordinary(The normal means) Magisterium(Teaching) is. {As a side note, why does everyone translate the first two words into english and not the last word? Magisterium is Latin for Teaching and Magister is Teacher} which is the Normal means of teaching for all time and everywhere, the infallible arm of which is that which originated and was passed down for all time via Christ and his Apostles and which are brought to us through scripture and tradition.
-
And cuм ex Apostolatus Officio certainly is still valid. It is cited in the 1917 code of canon law dealing with the issue of heretics holding office and is based in divine law not ecclesial law and therefore is true in perpetuity.
Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).
Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
The problem with this seems to be "ecclesiastical impediment" as opposed to divine impediment.
From Nuvos Ordo Watch
http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm
Salza Error #4: The Claim that Sedevacantism ignores the fact that the law of the Church allows even excommunicated cardinals to be elected Pope validly
Surprisingly enough, John Salza saw fit to repeat an old long-refuted argument against sedevacantism from Pope Pius XII’s constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, promulgated in 1945, regarding the election of a Pope. Salza quotes the Pope as follows:
None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff.
(Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945; qtd. in Salza, “Errors,” p. 3)
What may seem at first like a powerful strike against sedevacantism is easily refuted simply by drawing the proper distinctions, which Mr. Salza fails to do. What the Pope is doing here is lifting all ecclesiastical censures, including that of excommunication, which any cardinal may be laboring under at the time of the conclave, for the purposes of allowing him to licitly elect the Pope – and licitly be elected himself. In other words, the Pope is saying that no one may bar from the conclave a cardinal who has any ecclesiastical penalty against him. Note that the emphasis is on the word “ecclesiastical.” The Pope, obviously, can only dispense from ecclesiastical penalties, not from divine ones, for he has no power to reinstate into the Mystical Body of Christ those who have been cut off from it by the divine law. (The same Pius XII alludes to this in his 1951 address to midwives, where he refers to the “natural law, from which . . . not even the Church has the power to dispense” [Pope Pius XII, “Address to Midwives on the Nature of their Profession,” Oct. 29, 1951; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm)]. Of course, if the Church has no power to dispense from the natural law, then, all the more so, she does not have the power to dispense from the divine law, either.)
What this means, quite simply, is that heretics, schismatics, and apostates are, of course, banned from a conclave, but not because they are excommunicated by the Church, but because they are not members of the Church to begin with, because of their heresy, schism, or apostasy. Put differently: The heretic is excluded from the valid election of the Pope not under the aspect of being ecclesiastically excommunicated, but under the aspect of being a heretic, i.e., a non-Catholic. Note that Pius XII’s legislation merely speaks of “any . . . ecclesiastical impediment.” However, being a non-Catholic is not per se an ecclesiastical impediment, it is, first and foremost, a divine impediment, and, naturally, not one the Pope has any power to dispense from. If the Pope, hypothetically, had wished to do the impossible and include even heretics as “licit” electors or recipients of an election, he would have said so – he would have written, “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any apostasy, heresy, schism, excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical or divine impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff.” But of course, such a statement would have been absurd on the face of it, especially considering that, just as a “heretical Pope” is no Pope at all, neither is a “heretical cardinal” even a cardinal.
We recall here, as seen earlier, what Pius XII explicitly taught regarding apostasy, heresy, and schism in Mystici Corporis: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” These three sins are such as to expel a man from membership in the Church by their very nature (meaning that they are in and of themselves incompatible with being a Roman Catholic) – not because of some ecclesiastical punishment, such as an excommunication. The reason why an apostate, then, is not a Catholic, is not because a bishop or a Pope has excommunicated him, but because the sin of apostasy is in and of itself incompatible with being a Roman Catholic, just as it is in and of itself incompatible for a triangle to have no angles.
Therefore, the fact that Pius XII lifted all excommunications from cardinals for the purposes of holding a licit conclave is irrelevant to the question of sedevacantism. Salza is merely demonstrating his ignorance on this point, failing to realize that Pius XII is speaking of Catholics who are excommunicated, not of non-Catholics. As this may be somewhat confusing for some, let me try to give an example of where this papal legislation would apply. Imagine a wayward cardinal who directly violates the seal of confession. By doing so, he incurs an automatic excommunication from which only the Pope can absolve him (see Canon 2369 §1). Let’s say that before the cardinal can reconcile with the Holy See and have his excommunication lifted, the Pope dies. Now what? Is the cardinal allowed to participate in the conclave, and could he even validly and licitly be elected Pope himself, even though he is under excommunication? Pius XII’s legislation says “yes.” That’s all we’re talking about. It has nothing to do with the ridiculous notion that someone can become Pope who denies the Catholic religion again and again in his words and actions.
For more on the argument from Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, please see this article:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/blog/2007/06/25/can-an-excommunicated-cardinal-be-elected-pope
-
And cuм ex Apostolatus Officio certainly is still valid. It is cited in the 1917 code of canon law dealing with the issue of heretics holding office and is based in divine law not ecclesial law and therefore is true in perpetuity.
Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).
Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
The problem with this seems to be "ecclesiastical impediment" as opposed to divine impediment.
From Nuvos Ordo Watch
http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm
Salza Error #4: The Claim that Sedevacantism ignores the fact that the law of the Church allows even excommunicated cardinals to be elected Pope validly
Surprisingly enough, John Salza saw fit to repeat an old long-refuted argument against sedevacantism from Pope Pius XII’s constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, promulgated in 1945, regarding the election of a Pope. Salza quotes the Pope as follows:
None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff.
(Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945; qtd. in Salza, “Errors,” p. 3)
What may seem at first like a powerful strike against sedevacantism is easily refuted simply by drawing the proper distinctions, which Mr. Salza fails to do. What the Pope is doing here is lifting all ecclesiastical censures, including that of excommunication, which any cardinal may be laboring under at the time of the conclave, for the purposes of allowing him to licitly elect the Pope – and licitly be elected himself. In other words, the Pope is saying that no one may bar from the conclave a cardinal who has any ecclesiastical penalty against him. Note that the emphasis is on the word “ecclesiastical.” The Pope, obviously, can only dispense from ecclesiastical penalties, not from divine ones, for he has no power to reinstate into the Mystical Body of Christ those who have been cut off from it by the divine law. (The same Pius XII alludes to this in his 1951 address to midwives, where he refers to the “natural law, from which . . . not even the Church has the power to dispense” [Pope Pius XII, “Address to Midwives on the Nature of their Profession,” Oct. 29, 1951; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm)]. Of course, if the Church has no power to dispense from the natural law, then, all the more so, she does not have the power to dispense from the divine law, either.)
What this means, quite simply, is that heretics, schismatics, and apostates are, of course, banned from a conclave, but not because they are excommunicated by the Church, but because they are not members of the Church to begin with, because of their heresy, schism, or apostasy. Put differently: The heretic is excluded from the valid election of the Pope not under the aspect of being ecclesiastically excommunicated, but under the aspect of being a heretic, i.e., a non-Catholic. Note that Pius XII’s legislation merely speaks of “any . . . ecclesiastical impediment.” However, being a non-Catholic is not per se an ecclesiastical impediment, it is, first and foremost, a divine impediment, and, naturally, not one the Pope has any power to dispense from. If the Pope, hypothetically, had wished to do the impossible and include even heretics as “licit” electors or recipients of an election, he would have said so – he would have written, “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any apostasy, heresy, schism, excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical or divine impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff.” But of course, such a statement would have been absurd on the face of it, especially considering that, just as a “heretical Pope” is no Pope at all, neither is a “heretical cardinal” even a cardinal.
We recall here, as seen earlier, what Pius XII explicitly taught regarding apostasy, heresy, and schism in Mystici Corporis: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” These three sins are such as to expel a man from membership in the Church by their very nature (meaning that they are in and of themselves incompatible with being a Roman Catholic) – not because of some ecclesiastical punishment, such as an excommunication. The reason why an apostate, then, is not a Catholic, is not because a bishop or a Pope has excommunicated him, but because the sin of apostasy is in and of itself incompatible with being a Roman Catholic, just as it is in and of itself incompatible for a triangle to have no angles.
Therefore, the fact that Pius XII lifted all excommunications from cardinals for the purposes of holding a licit conclave is irrelevant to the question of sedevacantism. Salza is merely demonstrating his ignorance on this point, failing to realize that Pius XII is speaking of Catholics who are excommunicated, not of non-Catholics. As this may be somewhat confusing for some, let me try to give an example of where this papal legislation would apply. Imagine a wayward cardinal who directly violates the seal of confession. By doing so, he incurs an automatic excommunication from which only the Pope can absolve him (see Canon 2369 §1). Let’s say that before the cardinal can reconcile with the Holy See and have his excommunication lifted, the Pope dies. Now what? Is the cardinal allowed to participate in the conclave, and could he even validly and licitly be elected Pope himself, even though he is under excommunication? Pius XII’s legislation says “yes.” That’s all we’re talking about. It has nothing to do with the ridiculous notion that someone can become Pope who denies the Catholic religion again and again in his words and actions.
For more on the argument from Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, please see this article:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/blog/2007/06/25/can-an-excommunicated-cardinal-be-elected-pope
You believe what this article states because you want to believe it. The Divine Law is what you will be judged on by God. The Church and Church Laws and institutions do not judge based on this. Heresy and Apostosy are covered in the Code of Canon Law. They state quite clearly that there is a difference between being excommunicated for being a heretic or apostate in the internal forum and being excommunicated in the external forum. The Sedevacantists have lots of arguments that they believe to be true but very little understanding of the basic rules that govern the church. If you commit the crime of Murder you have broken a Divine Law. You are internally excommunicated, that is until you repent and are absolved. If you now state that a Pope is not a Pope because he once commited Murder or Theft or Adultery etc. You are a Donatist Heretic.
So too, you cannot say that since one person has commited an act of Heresy that he is not the Pope, 1: To be a formal Heretic and thusly excommunicated in even the internal forum you must be obstinate in that error, how the church has always judged this was when the individual did not correct themselves after being admonished by a Superior. 2: You cannot judge his internal forum, Cardinals do not incur Ipso Facto Excommunication in the External Forum except in one case in the 1917 Code of Canon Law(Yes they are exempt from most penalties in Canon Law) that being Putting themselves as the Pope's Judge. Which of course is what you are doing, judging whether someone is or is not the Pope based on his internal disposition because there has been no external decree in the external forum.
-
So you're 100% sure Roncalli was pope?
-
So you're 100% sure Roncalli was pope?
I am morally certain that Roncalli was a true pope.
-
So...Paul VI was not to be recognized as a true pope because the Holy Ghost allowed him to enter harmful things into the magisterium and liturgy....and we know the Holy Ghost, as a dogma, will not allow that with a true pope.
You are twisting the meaning of papal infallibility. This dogma pronounced at Vatican I was not meant to establish or determine whether the man sitting on the throne of Peter is a true pope; rather, it assumes that he is a true pope and that we can determine the dogmatic force of his teachings by the fulfilling of the necessary conditions.
I am not speaking of papal infallibility. I am speaking of the dogma that the Holy Ghost will not allow a true pope to approve of something that will go into the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium (which is pertains to the Church's infallibility). It is impossible. And when it does happen, we know for certain that the man is not a true pope. The Church said so. Argue with the Church.
Please provide me a reference for this dogma.
Cupertino, I am really interested in learning more about this dogma.
-
Watch your tongue boy.
This is an arrogant comment.
His comment was true, he is aguing with Sirinites and you are changing the subject
He brought up cuм refering to heretics, I responded to it. That isn't changing the subject. I agree with him on the Siri thesis, I never claimed I didn't.
As for the past four Popes being Heretics, Materially they are, we agree on that. There has never been a pronouncement or a declaration that they incured the Ipso Facto excommunications, and thus they are not canonically excommunicated even if they are excommunicated in the internal forum.
Benedict knows what the Church teaches, have you read some quotes of his criticizing past dogmas and actions of the Church? You can't hold anything against me for having issues with Benedict. Bishop Tissier, though he is not a sede, said a book Ratzinger wrote in the 1960s contained many heresies and blasphemies.
Anyway, I'm not here to discuss sedevacantism.
-
What this means, quite simply, is that heretics, schismatics, and apostates are, of course, banned from a conclave, but not because they are excommunicated by the Church, but because they are not members of the Church to begin with, because of their heresy, schism, or apostasy. Put differently: The heretic is excluded from the valid election of the Pope not under the aspect of being ecclesiastically excommunicated, but under the aspect of being a heretic, i.e., a non-Catholic. Note that Pius XII’s legislation merely speaks of “any . . . ecclesiastical impediment.”
The Church cannot make judgements on one's internal disposition/conscience, so how then do you think you or I can, unless you have some special gift.
The Church can only make judgements on what it hears and sees externally and therefore can only make canonical judgements that portend the internal disposition. That is why someone can die excommunicated (St. Joan of Arc) and still go to heaven.
-
He brought up cuм refering to heretics, I responded to it. That isn't changing the subject. I agree with him on the Siri thesis, I never claimed I didn't.
We (not you and I) were discussing the Siri thesis and you brought cuм in response to my posting of an extract regarding canonical elections. My post was meant to reference the subject matter of the Siri thesis. cuм did not relate to my posting, so it was you who changed the subject matter.
-
He brought up cuм refering to heretics, I responded to it. That isn't changing the subject. I agree with him on the Siri thesis, I never claimed I didn't.
We (not you and I) were discussing the Siri thesis and you brought cuм in response to my posting of an extract regarding canonical elections. My post was meant to reference the subject matter of the Siri thesis. cuм did not relate to my posting, so it was you who changed the subject matter.
I brought up cuм because you made this incorrect statement:
Because they were accepted by the Visible Church as pontiffs, they became true popes.
-
And cuм ex Apostolatus Officio certainly is still valid. It is cited in the 1917 code of canon law dealing with the issue of heretics holding office and is based in divine law not ecclesial law and therefore is true in perpetuity.
Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).
Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
The problem with this seems to be "ecclesiastical impediment" as opposed to divine impediment.
From Nuvos Ordo Watch
http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm
Salza Error #4: The Claim that Sedevacantism ignores the fact that the law of the Church allows even excommunicated cardinals to be elected Pope validly
Surprisingly enough, John Salza saw fit to repeat an old long-refuted argument against sedevacantism from Pope Pius XII’s constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, promulgated in 1945, regarding the election of a Pope. Salza quotes the Pope as follows:
None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff.
(Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945; qtd. in Salza, “Errors,” p. 3)
What may seem at first like a powerful strike against sedevacantism is easily refuted simply by drawing the proper distinctions, which Mr. Salza fails to do. What the Pope is doing here is lifting all ecclesiastical censures, including that of excommunication, which any cardinal may be laboring under at the time of the conclave, for the purposes of allowing him to licitly elect the Pope – and licitly be elected himself. In other words, the Pope is saying that no one may bar from the conclave a cardinal who has any ecclesiastical penalty against him. Note that the emphasis is on the word “ecclesiastical.” The Pope, obviously, can only dispense from ecclesiastical penalties, not from divine ones, for he has no power to reinstate into the Mystical Body of Christ those who have been cut off from it by the divine law. (The same Pius XII alludes to this in his 1951 address to midwives, where he refers to the “natural law, from which . . . not even the Church has the power to dispense” [Pope Pius XII, “Address to Midwives on the Nature of their Profession,” Oct. 29, 1951; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm)]. Of course, if the Church has no power to dispense from the natural law, then, all the more so, she does not have the power to dispense from the divine law, either.)
What this means, quite simply, is that heretics, schismatics, and apostates are, of course, banned from a conclave, but not because they are excommunicated by the Church, but because they are not members of the Church to begin with, because of their heresy, schism, or apostasy. Put differently: The heretic is excluded from the valid election of the Pope not under the aspect of being ecclesiastically excommunicated, but under the aspect of being a heretic, i.e., a non-Catholic. Note that Pius XII’s legislation merely speaks of “any . . . ecclesiastical impediment.” However, being a non-Catholic is not per se an ecclesiastical impediment, it is, first and foremost, a divine impediment, and, naturally, not one the Pope has any power to dispense from. If the Pope, hypothetically, had wished to do the impossible and include even heretics as “licit” electors or recipients of an election, he would have said so – he would have written, “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any apostasy, heresy, schism, excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical or divine impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff.” But of course, such a statement would have been absurd on the face of it, especially considering that, just as a “heretical Pope” is no Pope at all, neither is a “heretical cardinal” even a cardinal.
We recall here, as seen earlier, what Pius XII explicitly taught regarding apostasy, heresy, and schism in Mystici Corporis: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” These three sins are such as to expel a man from membership in the Church by their very nature (meaning that they are in and of themselves incompatible with being a Roman Catholic) – not because of some ecclesiastical punishment, such as an excommunication. The reason why an apostate, then, is not a Catholic, is not because a bishop or a Pope has excommunicated him, but because the sin of apostasy is in and of itself incompatible with being a Roman Catholic, just as it is in and of itself incompatible for a triangle to have no angles.
Therefore, the fact that Pius XII lifted all excommunications from cardinals for the purposes of holding a licit conclave is irrelevant to the question of sedevacantism. Salza is merely demonstrating his ignorance on this point, failing to realize that Pius XII is speaking of Catholics who are excommunicated, not of non-Catholics. As this may be somewhat confusing for some, let me try to give an example of where this papal legislation would apply. Imagine a wayward cardinal who directly violates the seal of confession. By doing so, he incurs an automatic excommunication from which only the Pope can absolve him (see Canon 2369 §1). Let’s say that before the cardinal can reconcile with the Holy See and have his excommunication lifted, the Pope dies. Now what? Is the cardinal allowed to participate in the conclave, and could he even validly and licitly be elected Pope himself, even though he is under excommunication? Pius XII’s legislation says “yes.” That’s all we’re talking about. It has nothing to do with the ridiculous notion that someone can become Pope who denies the Catholic religion again and again in his words and actions.
For more on the argument from Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, please see this article:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/blog/2007/06/25/can-an-excommunicated-cardinal-be-elected-pope
Pius XII was not the first Pope to allow an ex-communicated Cardinal into a conclave.
I don't really see how there could be something called a 'heretical pope'. Such an oxymoron would immediately render himself an anti-pope.
-
He brought up cuм refering to heretics, I responded to it. That isn't changing the subject. I agree with him on the Siri thesis, I never claimed I didn't.
We (not you and I) were discussing the Siri thesis and you brought cuм in response to my posting of an extract regarding canonical elections. My post was meant to reference the subject matter of the Siri thesis. cuм did not relate to my posting, so it was you who changed the subject matter.
I brought up cuм because you made this incorrect statement:
Because they were accepted by the Visible Church as pontiffs, they became true popes.
I posted a whole extract from a website where I got this information. I also posted the link to that website. I meant to make reference to the Siri thesis in that a seemingly invalid election because of outside pressure on the elected person to refuse his election may still indeed be valid.
-
There has never been a pronouncement or a declaration that they incured the Ipso Facto excommunications, and thus they are not canonically excommunicated even if they are excommunicated in the internal forum.
ip·so fac·to
noun
by the fact itself; by the very nature of the deed: to be condemned ipso facto.
One is not "declared" ipso facto excommunicated, one simply is so.
I suggest you read the commentary I posted on the Code of Canon Law, read the part about Simony, if someone were to bribe their way into the Papacy it may be valid even though they and whomever they bribed would be ipso facto excommunicated. The excommunication would be internally since he would not declare himself to have incurred it.
Someone who is ipso facto excommunicated, even for private sin, is still excommunicated.
That is, however, not relevant to this case. We are discussing here the manifest heresy and apostasy of the recent "popes". Manifest, as in public.
-
There has never been a pronouncement or a declaration that they incured the Ipso Facto excommunications, and thus they are not canonically excommunicated even if they are excommunicated in the internal forum.
ip·so fac·to
noun
by the fact itself; by the very nature of the deed: to be condemned ipso facto.
One is not "declared" ipso facto excommunicated, one simply is so.
I suggest you read the commentary I posted on the Code of Canon Law, read the part about Simony, if someone were to bribe their way into the Papacy it may be valid even though they and whomever they bribed would be ipso facto excommunicated. The excommunication would be internally since he would not declare himself to have incurred it.
Someone who is ipso facto excommunicated, even for private sin, is still excommunicated.
That is, however, not relevant to this case. We are discussing here the manifest heresy and apostasy of the recent "popes". Manifest, as in public.
You should read the Code of Canon Law, on another thread I have posted 50 or so pages from it relating to this. One who commits an offence with an Ipso Facto excommunication incurs it immediately in the internal forum but not on the external forum until it is declared at which time it becomes retroactive to the time it was incured. That is one does not lose offices, one does not suffer any penalty whatsoever in the external forum until such an offence is declared to have been incurred.
So it is semantics, yes the person is excommunicated, but in the internal forum, not the external until it is declared which was my point since no effects are incurred in the external forum until it is declared.
I believe the relavant pages of the Code of Canon Law are in the thread "I'm curious" somewhere around pages 7 or 8.
-
Secondly if the Law cuм ex was cited in the 1917 Code, then cite it. I have the 1917 Code of Canon Law in 2 different commentaries and it does not mention cuм Ex at all. Furthermore it states the same decree that Pope St. Pius X made and was cited by Ecclesia Militans.
I believe you have recieved faulty information.
I just wanted to post here that "cuм Ex" is cited in the footnotes referring to Canon 188.4 which, I think, deals with the loss of office due to the defection from the faith.
The copy I am referring to was published by PJ Kennedy and Sons, in 1918 and the text in reference is located on p. 47. If a scan is requested, I can probably come up with that. Either way, I am doing this to support Thursday and KofCTrad.
Also, St. Thomas refers to an act of worship that is directed to an end that is not God is an act of apostasy (worshiping at the tomb of Mahomet is the example).
These men (Paul VI, JPII, B16) have done far worse - not only engaging in false worship, they have promoted it among their hierarchy and forced it on the faithful and encouraged members of false religions to continue and promote their false religions. They have taken part in pagan, muslim and judaic worship.
It really is not complex - they are not Catholics.
-
The Church's official acts (without papal infallibility) are protected from any harm by the Holy Ghost.
I have stated on another post that the Church, as the Bride of Christ, is infallible. The pope is not always so. Therefore, he can teach err, even to the Universal Church. However, you need to define "the Church's official acts". Was Pope Paul VI signing onto Vatican II and promulgating the New Mass "the Church's official acts"? I would say "NO"!
If the pope can teach doctrinal error (doctrine being the fundamental of our Catholicism), it only stands to reason that he can promulgate rites that are not beneficial and even harmful.
-
I just wanted to post here that "cuм Ex" is cited in the footnotes referring to Canon 188.4 which, I think, deals with the loss of office due to the defection from the faith.
As a footnote??? Doesn't sound too convincing to me. Anyhow, Pope Pius XII took care of that.
-
Let me begin by saying most people who I know who "believe the Siri thesis" do not actually claim that they are 100% sure that this is the case, only that it is highly probable that this or some variation of it is correct which Canon Law gives us sufficient room to do.
A few points do come to mind regarding what has been posted so far.
I defer to the theologian Cardinal Billot, the Doctor St. Alphonsus De Liguori, and the great Benedictine Abbot, Prosper Guéranger. They give the following rule: "The peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope by the whole Church is a sign and effect of a valid election."
This was written by veteran Vatican correspondant 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. "
I've talked to several people who remember the white smoke, hek my parents, both of them remember it. One fellow told me his grandfather told him that they hijacked the Church in 58 when the white smoke billowed from the Sistine Chapel and they announced that a new pope had been elected only to declare that it was a mistake an hour later.
Does this sound like "peaceful acceptance of the whole Church" to you? Those in the know knew something was fishy right from the beginning. Even the the articles that appeared in the newspaper alluded to fraud "I guess the stove had a will of it's own" was one of the comments I recall coming form a major Italian newspaper the next day.
Anacletus II was nearly universally accepted by the faithful for several years after his pontificate began, that didn't stop St. Bernard from investigating the situation rallying behind Innocent II once he was convinced that he was the true pope..
-
If the pope can teach doctrinal error (doctrine being the fundamental of our Catholicism), it only stands to reason that he can promulgate rites that are not beneficial and even harmful.
No he can't. The Pope does not even have the authority to promulgate a new liturgy, much less a sacreligious one.
-
The Church's official acts (without papal infallibility) are protected from any harm by the Holy Ghost.
I have stated on another post that the Church, as the Bride of Christ, is infallible. The pope is not always so. Therefore, he can teach err, even to the Universal Church. However, you need to define "the Church's official acts". Was Pope Paul VI signing onto Vatican II and promulgating the New Mass "the Church's official acts"? I would say "NO"!
If the pope can teach doctrinal error (doctrine being the fundamental of our Catholicism), it only stands to reason that he can promulgate rites that are not beneficial and even harmful.
Based on your response, I really have to ask you...do you accept all the quotes I just gave as being true?
I really have to tell you that you do not understand the quotes you use.
-
If the pope can teach doctrinal error (doctrine being the fundamental of our Catholicism), it only stands to reason that he can promulgate rites that are not beneficial and even harmful.
No he can't. The Pope does not even have the authority to promulgate a new liturgy, much less a sacreligious one.
You are right he does not have that authority, it is a sin for him to do so. And noone is bound to obey him because he does not have the authority to do so. Futhermore there are three types of Obedience listed in theology, one of which, obeying an illegal command is a Mortal Sin.
It is irrelavant anyhow since he never officially promulgated the Novus Ordo, the notice came from the Congragation of Sacred Rites that it was to be used. Pope Paul VI's 'decree' amounted to "I like this book".
-
If the pope can teach doctrinal error (doctrine being the fundamental of our Catholicism), it only stands to reason that he can promulgate rites that are not beneficial and even harmful.
No he can't. The Pope does not even have the authority to promulgate a new liturgy, much less a sacreligious one.
You are right he does not have that authority, it is a sin for him to do so. And noone is bound to obey him because he does not have the authority to do so. Futhermore there are three types of Obedience listed in theology, one of which, obeying an illegal command is a Mortal Sin.
It is irrelavant anyhow since he never officially promulgated the Novus Ordo, the notice came from the Congragation of Sacred Rites that it was to be used. Pope Paul VI's 'decree' amounted to "I like this book".
I don't even know how to debate with some of you the arguments are so weak.
So if you say or go to the Mass the Pope says is O.K. you sin mortally? :shocked:
I suggest you read some Trent. :reading: That's anathemetized.
So he never officially promulgated the Novus Ordo but it's said in every Roman Novus Ordo parish on the planet? You realize that Paul VI himself said it was not optional and that only older priests saying Mass alone would be dispensed of saying the New Mass.
I used to hold the SSPX position but it's so illogical I had to do more research. That's when I found John Lane's debates, Gerry Matattics, The SSPX 9 and the Siri Thesis. Than things made more sense.
Yes, I meant that cuм was incorporated into the 1917 code in a footnote dealing with the issue. Meaning it was cited because it's still law. Of divine origin since a heretic is not a member of the Church. Which has been established by numerous Popes and theologians through the centuries.
And thank you for the person who rebutted that Pius XII was only lifting ecclesial excommunications. I was going to post the same. Thanks.
If you even thought that the Pope could do what you thought Pius XII was doing then you don't understand enough to be discussing these issues.
-
The Church's official acts (without papal infallibility) are protected from any harm by the Holy Ghost.
I have stated on another post that the Church, as the Bride of Christ, is infallible. The pope is not always so. Therefore, he can teach err, even to the Universal Church. However, you need to define "the Church's official acts". Was Pope Paul VI signing onto Vatican II and promulgating the New Mass "the Church's official acts"? I would say "NO"!
If the pope can teach doctrinal error (doctrine being the fundamental of our Catholicism), it only stands to reason that he can promulgate rites that are not beneficial and even harmful.
[/b]
Holy Cow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :facepalm: :surprised: :shocked:
Stop now. Quit while you're ahead errr behind.
Canon 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety,[26] let him be anathema.
Kind of hard for a True Pope to give the Church a harmful rite if you believe what Trent teaches. Which by the way you sort of have to.
Notice I didn't say promulgate for the knitpickers BUT he certainly gave...
And the "Pope" can teach doctrinal error to the entire Church?
Talk about learning something new everyday....
-
If the pope can teach doctrinal error (doctrine being the fundamental of our Catholicism), it only stands to reason that he can promulgate rites that are not beneficial and even harmful.
No he can't. The Pope does not even have the authority to promulgate a new liturgy, much less a sacreligious one.
When I said the pope "can", I did not mean that it is morally licit for him to do so. I meant that he is physically or psychologically able to do so.
-
It is irrelavant anyhow since he never officially promulgated the Novus Ordo, the notice came from the Congragation of Sacred Rites that it was to be used. Pope Paul VI's 'decree' amounted to "I like this book".
Good old Fr. Gregory Hesse - may his soul rest in peace. What you say is true; however, I am of the stance that even if he did officially promulgate the Novus Ordo, that it does not necessarily follow that the Church's indefectibility would be in question. Vatican I defined papal infallibility in regards to Faith and Morals and not to liturgical/disciplinary matters.
-
The Church's official acts (without papal infallibility) are protected from any harm by the Holy Ghost.
I have stated on another post that the Church, as the Bride of Christ, is infallible. The pope is not always so. Therefore, he can teach err, even to the Universal Church. However, you need to define "the Church's official acts". Was Pope Paul VI signing onto Vatican II and promulgating the New Mass "the Church's official acts"? I would say "NO"!
If the pope can teach doctrinal error (doctrine being the fundamental of our Catholicism), it only stands to reason that he can promulgate rites that are not beneficial and even harmful.
[/b]
Holy Cow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :facepalm: :surprised: :shocked:
Stop now. Quit while you're ahead errr behind.
Canon 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety,[26] let him be anathema.
Kind of hard for a True Pope to give the Church a harmful rite if you believe what Trent teaches. Which by the way you sort of have to.
Notice I didn't say promulgate for the knitpickers BUT he certainly gave...
And the "Pope" can teach doctrinal error to the entire Church?
Talk about learning something new everyday....
I stand by what I said. The Novus Ordo Rite is not part of the Catholic Church.
Yes, the pope can teach err, even to the whole Church. All conditions require papal infallibility. If even one is missing, then the Holy Ghost does not guarantee that the teaching is infallible.
-
And I know that theologians teach that the pope is infallible in certain disciplinary matters; however, the Church has never defined what conditions are required for the pope to be infallible in these disciplinary matters as it has done in matters of Faith and Morals.
-
You have just completely ignored the infallibility of the Church, as distinct from papal infallibility.
How so?
-
I think you guys need your own thread, this one is about Cardinal Siri.