Author Topic: Cardinal Siri And The V2 Docuмents (Read 19486 times)

roscoe · « **on:** November 07, 2010, 09:40:16 PM »

Seeing the discussion re Lefevbre and the v2 docuмents has me almost afraid to ask if Pope/ Card Siri signed the v2 docuмents.

Looking again at Paul Williams Vatican Exposed I recall some things that should be noted.

In addition to the FBI report on the election of Pope Siri, an article by Louis Remy appeared in a French periodical. Also Vatican Radio announced that 'there is absolutely no doubt that a new Pope had been elected'. These words were reprinted in The London Tablet.

If that is not enough, Msg Sentaro( Sec of Conclave) informed the press that the 'smoke was white and a new Pope had been elected'.

It also turns out that the Houston Post Article was not a confirmation of the Siri election but an apparent attempt to obsure the truth saying that no pope had been elected after 4 ballots.

All this acc to Mr Williams

Thursday · « **Reply #1 on:** November 07, 2010, 09:54:24 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

If that is not enough, Msg Sentaro( Sec of Conclave) informed the press that the 'smoke was white and a new Pope had been elected'.

Msgr Santaro was secretary of the 39 conclave and what you describe happened (debatebly) in 39. The source of this information is from an italian newspaper article by silvio negro printed the day after the conclave on October 27. The newspaper article written in italian was camparing the 58 conclave and the 1939 conclave. In certain places in the article it is hard to tell whether the author is referrring to the 39 or the 58 conclave. So this mistake, hardly destroying the siri thesis, was a major blow to those who tried to promote it. But santaro was definetly secretary in 39.

roscoe · « **Reply #2 on:** November 07, 2010, 10:13:01 PM »

That was my impression as well-- it is debatable if the story about 1939 is true. Does Negro say who was elected if not Pacelli?

Thursday · « **Reply #3 on:** November 07, 2010, 11:47:14 PM »

Negro doesn't say anything directly although he hints at stuff. Secretary of the 58 conclave was Alberto Di Jorio.

Go here for analysis of the negro article
http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/RebuttalArticleIII.htm

roscoe · « **Reply #4 on:** November 09, 2010, 02:27:35 PM »

Thank U Thurs-- I will read all 3 parts and reply.

I am still curious to know if Pope/ Card Siri signed the 'v2 docuмents' that Lefevbre signed. Until someone claims that he did, I -- as a Sirite-- will not believe it.

Thursday · « **Reply #5 on:** November 09, 2010, 02:44:31 PM »

He is quoted as saying "we will not be bound by these decrees"
however I believe he did sign them.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #6 on:** November 09, 2010, 07:27:28 PM »

Quote from: Thursday

He is quoted as saying "we will not be bound by these decrees"
however I believe he did sign them.

Yes, even the Siri-ists who are prominent defenders of the hidden pope theory do not dispute that Siri signed the V2 docuмents. Rather (rightly or wrongly) they make excuses for why he did.

roscoe · « **Reply #7 on:** November 09, 2010, 08:19:51 PM »

What exactly is meant by 'the v2 docuмents'?

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #8 on:** November 09, 2010, 08:22:33 PM »

Them he said that he was not bound to these decrees.
Signing a docuмent is one thing, being bound to them is
an another.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #9 on:** November 10, 2010, 12:09:27 AM »

Quote from: roscoe

What exactly is meant by 'the v2 docuмents'?

What exactly did you mean by 'the v2 docuмents'? You are the one who used that terminology three times in this thread before I did.

Thursday · « **Reply #10 on:** November 10, 2010, 12:29:25 AM »

Quote from: RomanCatholic1953

Them he said that he was not bound to these decrees.
Signing a docuмent is one thing, being bound to them is
an another.

If they were signed under duress he would not be bound by them.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #11 on:** November 10, 2010, 12:32:12 AM »

Quote from: Thursday

Quote from: RomanCatholic1953
Them he said that he was not bound to these decrees.
Signing a docuмent is one thing, being bound to them is
an another.

If they were signed under duress he would not be bound by them.

True. Has anyone ever presented any credible, verifiable evidence that he signed them under duress?

Thursday · « **Reply #12 on:** November 10, 2010, 12:57:01 AM »

Well if they got him to abdicate the papacy I'm sure they could get him to sign a few docuмents. He is reported to have said they can kill me at anytime. We do not know why he signed the docuмents, he was staunchly traditional, it was certainly out of character. Unless there is a video of him with his fingers nails being plucked out some people will never there was any funny business going on.

Ottiavanni signed them too, which doesn't make a lot of sense either.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #13 on:** November 10, 2010, 01:05:11 AM »

Quote from: Thursday

Ottiavanni signed them too, which doesn't make a lot of sense either.

Well it does make sense of the logical conclusion that duress was not required to get good people to sign them.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #14 on:** November 10, 2010, 01:08:02 AM »

Quote from: Thursday

We do not know why he signed the docuмents, he was staunchly traditional, it was certainly out of character.

Maybe not out of character. Just not known publicly or made clear to us.

Lefebvre and Ottaviani were traditional too. They were not coerced into signing.