Author Topic: Cardinal Siri (Read 7676 times)

Thursday · « **Reply #15 on:** June 22, 2010, 05:33:34 AM »

Funny, John Lane didn't want people discussing this topic on the Ballarmine forums
http://www.sedevacantist.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=128

And you can't discuss this topic on Fisheaters
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3428084.msg33239675.html#msg33239675

If it gets stopped here my curiosity will really be tweaked.

Lane recommended this site for info on the siri thesis
http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/Articles.htm

Alexandria · « **Reply #16 on:** June 22, 2010, 11:41:31 AM »

Quote from: Thursday

Malachi Martin wrote about this in Keys to this Blood. He said that Siri was put under duress in what he calls "the little brutality."

I think this is a very likely scenario, if he declined the papacy while under duress this woulld maKE HIM THE TRUE POPE. It would be virtually the same if they came in with strongman and just kicked out the old pope and put the new guy on.

I don't have the reference handy now but I believe he was selected again in 1964 and in 1978, according to Malachia Martin.

I wouldn't take his word for much.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #17 on:** June 22, 2010, 03:58:42 PM »

This is the I dunno... dozenth thread about this in as long as I've been here, and I still have the information for those people that want to look this stuff up.

I was going to go to the national archives when I was pregnant with my now 11 month old, but by the time I got the info, it was too late. I couldn't fly safely that pregnant, much less be walking around DC by myself.

So, if anyone wants to have this information, please ask me in a PM, and I'll get it to you so you can go to the National Archives yourself and look this stuff up in the boxes the stuff you want might be in.

I used to be a proponent of this theory, but, as all of you, I haven't been able to find concrete proof, and the guy that said he would share his information with me, sent me three semi-interesting things, and promised to send me more, and never did citing the "holy see" told him he couldn't... so... Incidentally, it happens to be the one person that has a website dedicated to the true holy see and restoration, TCW, and the pope in red.

This is public information. All of us have access to it, if we can go down there and get it ourselves. Hopefully, the next person that volunteers to go over there, will be kind enough to share it with us and stop being so esoteric about it. If it's true, then LET IT SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY, if it's not, then we should be able to dismiss it certainly.

I have about 4 box numbers if you want to take a jaunt down to the National Archives in Washington, DC.

roscoe · « **Reply #18 on:** June 22, 2010, 05:45:53 PM »

There are many more sources for the info that just Williams or Hobson.

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #19 on:** June 23, 2010, 12:02:39 AM »

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGdCl.kyFMd10A4vNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzbjRvMjgwBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA0Y2NjZfMTEx/SIG=11q4v37v4/EXP=1277355262/**http%3a//www.thepopeinred.com/thesis.htm

roscoe · « **Reply #20 on:** June 23, 2010, 02:45:20 AM »

Malfunction.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #21 on:** June 23, 2010, 05:49:57 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote
the best evidence might be the FBI docs cited by Paul Williams.

He made it up. There is no such evidence. The fact that they have to appeal to the "FBI" for information regarding a Papal conclave is in itself ridiculous.

Not likely. His comments came off-hand in a footnote, and he cited specific docuмents as his sources. What's more likely is that these docs have since been buried away again--away from the light of day. Someone got wind of the fact that Williams let it slip out and told him to shut up.

What's ridiculous is your attitude that this scenario must be considered impossible.

You can be pretty sure that both the US and the Soviets had spies within the conclave.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #22 on:** June 23, 2010, 10:55:19 AM »

Quote from: roscoe

There are many more sources for the info that just Williams or Hobson.

Where is the docuмented proof in hard copies, Roscoe? Even you haven't delivered there. I've tried to find it. I told you where you could potentially find it, and no one has given me anything.

You seem to know, so where is it?

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #23 on:** June 23, 2010, 10:57:41 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote
the best evidence might be the FBI docs cited by Paul Williams.

He made it up. There is no such evidence. The fact that they have to appeal to the "FBI" for information regarding a Papal conclave is in itself ridiculous.

Pretty laughable you would say this, Caminus. You say "there is no such evidence" however, he cited it wrong on purpose so that people wouldn't be able to find it. I researched this. I spoke to the archivists from the DoS and from NARA. I checked with the National Archives, so I can say your statement is patently false. Why don't -you- go over there? I'll even give you the box numbers so you can check stuff out.

Caminus · « **Reply #24 on:** June 23, 2010, 11:33:30 AM »

Oh gimme a break, you are too gullible. I don't care if he purposely gave specifically false information, though I'm not surprised for the man is simply not credible. My contention is that the entire claim is ridiculous. It exists in the realm of imagination.

The only man I know who is emotionally attached to this theory is a very troubled and irratic individual.

Even supposed there is some declassified FBI docuмent purporting that Siri was elected, what does that prove exactly? What kind of authority does such a statement carry? Do you really put that much trust in foreign intelligence? Or only when it suits a fancy?

Siri denied that he was Pope by admitting that he was bound by the secret of the conclave. In order to advance such a claim, you would necessarily imply that Siri was lying or deceiving. Not a very good start for the Pope who was to save the Church.

roscoe · « **Reply #25 on:** June 23, 2010, 06:02:36 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Quote from: roscoe
There are many more sources for the info that just Williams or Hobson.

Where is the docuмented proof in hard copies, Roscoe? Even you haven't delivered there. I've tried to find it. I told you where you could potentially find it, and no one has given me anything.

You seem to know, so where is it?

I was not a member of the Curia or at the Vatican in 1958. Of course I do not have t 'docuмented proof'. If that is what U need, then go follow the anti-popes.

roscoe · « **Reply #26 on:** June 23, 2010, 06:07:11 PM »

Here is another source gleaned from somewhere on this site

http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/Articles.htm

Additionally, I believe there is someone named Giufre who has published this info.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #27 on:** June 29, 2010, 10:44:55 AM »

It's easy to talk about how bogus it is, Caminus, if you haven't seen it. An honest person would at least look into the possibility instead of dismissing it because of one proponent of this theory.

It's stupid to throw the baby out with the bath water, and that's essentially what you are doing when you dismiss this because of --- you know who.

And you cite that he couldn't tell the secret. Sure, a dumb thing for a pope to do, however, how many dumb things have we seen the conciliar popes do?

That is really a stupid argument.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #28 on:** June 29, 2010, 10:47:14 AM »

Quote from: roscoe

Here is another source gleaned from somewhere on this site

http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/Articles.htm

Additionally, I believe there is someone named Giufre who has published this info.

I think Giuffre dismissed it. He was working with the Gibsons on it, (specifically Hutton) and I guess the deal was off.

I would have liked to see what he had. I think they even had a movie they were going to put together on this, but I haven't heard anything for years.

Caminus · « **Reply #29 on:** June 29, 2010, 11:00:12 AM »

It's not an argument, its about someone's credibility.