Author Topic: Gregory XVII (Read 5265 times)

CM · « **Reply #30 on:** June 24, 2009, 02:08:34 PM »

I believe it's much more simple than you all think.

Benedict XV taught heresy on several occasions, therefore he was an antipope. Pius XI followed him and recognized him as a valid pope, and he had many ambiguous teachings savoring of heresy himself. He was an antipope, and so it goes on down the line to the present day, with the heresy and apostasy getting worse and worse, culminating with John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who both boldly and shamelessly fornicate(d) with the enemies of God.

Anyone who recognized Benedict XV or anyone of his anti-successors as true popes is at least a schismatic, including Siri, Pio, Lucia, Malachi Martin, Ludwig Ott, etc. who are all red herrings, which satan wants us to obsess over.

Someone might attack me for this:

Quote from: Someone might have

Catholic Martyr, if what you're saying is true, then almost everyone in the world is going to hell and has been for close to 100 years!

To which I would reply:

Quote from: Jesus Christ

For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be. And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened. Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.

Anyone who accepts that a person who claims to be pope while inculcating heresies is actually an antipope, will see that my words are true.

Caminus · « **Reply #31 on:** June 24, 2009, 02:48:03 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

I believe it's much more simple than you all think.

Benedict XV taught heresy on several occasions, therefore he was an antipope. Pius XI followed him and recognized him as a valid pope, and he had many ambiguous teachings savoring of heresy himself. He was an antipope, and so it goes on down the line to the present day, with the heresy and apostasy getting worse and worse, culminating with John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who both boldly and shamelessly fornicate(d) with the enemies of God.

Devilish calumny. I know who your father is. You are a viper and whitewashed tomb who drags souls to hell because misery loves company.

Quote

Anyone who recognized Benedict XV or anyone of his anti-successors as true popes is at least a schismatic, including Siri, Pio, Lucia, Malachi Martin, Ludwig Ott, etc. who are all red herrings, which satan wants us to obsess over.

You're a liar and a thief from the pits of hell. Begone Satan.

Quote

Someone might attack me for this:

Quote from: Someone might have
Catholic Martyr, if what you're saying is true, then almost everyone in the world is going to hell and has been for close to 100 years!

To which I would reply:

Quote from: Jesus Christ
For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be. And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened. Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.

We have yet to see this "tribulation" your personal application of that prophecy notwithstanding. You're a liar who is full of hatred of God and His Church. Detestable deceiver. Go back from whence you came.

In imitation of your banishment from God and His Church, you should be banished from this message board so that your filthy lies may not infect more souls.

Even if Benedict and John Paul were anti-popes, at least they did not attack good and holy Pontiffs. You are a most despicable creature, a vessel fitted for destruction.

Don't bother replying to this or any other post I may write for you do not exist to me. I shall avoid you like the plague per St. Paul's injunction. I recommend others do likewise.

One last thing out of mercy, go now and see a priest for you are in grave need of exorcism.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #32 on:** June 24, 2009, 03:17:33 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: Dawn
even the C.I.A. has records that he was validly elected pontiff, and that he was "subjected to ill/violent treatment,"

I find it a little ridiculous that they rely upon this assertion. Something is very wrong with an idea that relies upon unseen FBI docuмents to determine a validly elected Pontiff. But if you trace this claim to its source, it dissipates into thin air. Provide these alleged docuмents or cease spreading this strange rumor.

The mere fact that Siri asserted that he was "bound by the secret" of the conclave is irrefutable evidence that he was not elected Pope, since true Popes are not bound by this secret. End of story. Finished. Its over. Look elsewhere for answers to this crisis.

I find it sort of comical that you would say that the source dissipates into thin air. Tell me. How far has your own research led to finding out the source of these docuмents. I haven't completed mine yet, but I'm asking you how long it took you to give up, and dismiss it like you have.

Dawn · « **Reply #33 on:** June 24, 2009, 04:23:35 PM »

I never said that I rely on the the C.I.A. You did. You twisted my words. I said that EVEN they knew of it.

Check out the 1966 copy of Life magazine if you would like to find out more that were an eye witness to this election.
Prince Sigismondo Chigi, hereditary marshal of the Conclave, was another, just off the top of my head, who docuмented what took place.

DeMaistre · « **Reply #34 on:** June 24, 2009, 04:31:30 PM »

Children, the lot of you. I've never seen more disgusting behaviour anywhere. I don't think that Catholic Martyr is correct, on many accounts, but I don't call him a devil. Your behaviour is despicable, all of you.

roscoe · « **Reply #35 on:** June 24, 2009, 05:23:54 PM »

Dawn PM'd me the following links and they should be posted.

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

I had not seen this research b4 and the evidence for Greg XVII is by now compelling.

Dawn · « **Reply #36 on:** June 24, 2009, 05:38:06 PM »

DeMaistre I second that. It is wrong for anyone to do that. Funny how it is the ones telling us that we have no right to judge whether someone is a heretic are the same ones calling Martyr names. Or flipping all of their arguments to make the person they are "debating" look like mental incompetants. Straight out of the Saul Alinsky handbook, "Rules for Radicals."

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

Caminus · « **Reply #37 on:** June 24, 2009, 05:48:07 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: Dawn
even the C.I.A. has records that he was validly elected pontiff, and that he was "subjected to ill/violent treatment,"

I find it a little ridiculous that they rely upon this assertion. Something is very wrong with an idea that relies upon unseen FBI docuмents to determine a validly elected Pontiff. But if you trace this claim to its source, it dissipates into thin air. Provide these alleged docuмents or cease spreading this strange rumor.

The mere fact that Siri asserted that he was "bound by the secret" of the conclave is irrefutable evidence that he was not elected Pope, since true Popes are not bound by this secret. End of story. Finished. Its over. Look elsewhere for answers to this crisis.

I find it sort of comical that you would say that the source dissipates into thin air. Tell me. How far has your own research led to finding out the source of these docuмents. I haven't completed mine yet, but I'm asking you how long it took you to give up, and dismiss it like you have.

Let me know when you find these docuмents that supposedly override canon law and the very words of the man purported to be Pope. Good luck. I stopped looking when the source was discovered. Its no accident that no one has seen them. Now unless you are calling Siri a liar and hypocrite, then I suggest you take him at his word.

Caminus · « **Reply #38 on:** June 24, 2009, 05:51:54 PM »

Quote from: DeMaistre

Children, the lot of you. I've never seen more disgusting behaviour anywhere. I don't think that Catholic Martyr is correct, on many accounts, but I don't call him a devil. Your behaviour is despicable, all of you.

Oh, I see, he can malign Popes and Saints and cause schism by his opining, and you simply call it being "mistaken" yet you hold out the most vicious attacks for those who disagree with your opinions. Get real. The incongruity is glaring. You haven't the moral judgment to issue general warnings to other Catholics.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #39 on:** June 24, 2009, 05:53:05 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: parentsfortruth
Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: Dawn
even the C.I.A. has records that he was validly elected pontiff, and that he was "subjected to ill/violent treatment,"

I find it a little ridiculous that they rely upon this assertion. Something is very wrong with an idea that relies upon unseen FBI docuмents to determine a validly elected Pontiff. But if you trace this claim to its source, it dissipates into thin air. Provide these alleged docuмents or cease spreading this strange rumor.

The mere fact that Siri asserted that he was "bound by the secret" of the conclave is irrefutable evidence that he was not elected Pope, since true Popes are not bound by this secret. End of story. Finished. Its over. Look elsewhere for answers to this crisis.

I find it sort of comical that you would say that the source dissipates into thin air. Tell me. How far has your own research led to finding out the source of these docuмents. I haven't completed mine yet, but I'm asking you how long it took you to give up, and dismiss it like you have.

Let me know when you find these docuмents that supposedly override canon law and the very words of the man purported to be Pope. Good luck. I stopped looking when the source was discovered. Its no accident that no one has seen them. Now unless you are calling Siri a liar and hypocrite, then I suggest you take him at his word.

You stopped looking when "the source" was discovered. So, what is your source?

Caminus · « **Reply #40 on:** June 24, 2009, 05:53:22 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Dawn PM'd me the following links and they should be posted.

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

I had not seen this research b4 and the evidence for Greg XVII is by now compelling.

How is rumor mongering and hearsay "compelling" evidence? I guess for one predisposed or who has already made up their mind, it could be construed as compelling.

Caminus · « **Reply #41 on:** June 24, 2009, 05:53:54 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: parentsfortruth
Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: Dawn
even the C.I.A. has records that he was validly elected pontiff, and that he was "subjected to ill/violent treatment,"

I find it a little ridiculous that they rely upon this assertion. Something is very wrong with an idea that relies upon unseen FBI docuмents to determine a validly elected Pontiff. But if you trace this claim to its source, it dissipates into thin air. Provide these alleged docuмents or cease spreading this strange rumor.

The mere fact that Siri asserted that he was "bound by the secret" of the conclave is irrefutable evidence that he was not elected Pope, since true Popes are not bound by this secret. End of story. Finished. Its over. Look elsewhere for answers to this crisis.

I find it sort of comical that you would say that the source dissipates into thin air. Tell me. How far has your own research led to finding out the source of these docuмents. I haven't completed mine yet, but I'm asking you how long it took you to give up, and dismiss it like you have.

Let me know when you find these docuмents that supposedly override canon law and the very words of the man purported to be Pope. Good luck. I stopped looking when the source was discovered. Its no accident that no one has seen them. Now unless you are calling Siri a liar and hypocrite, then I suggest you take him at his word.

You stopped looking when "the source" was discovered. So, what is your source?

Find it yourself, it took me about 10 minutes on Google.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #42 on:** June 24, 2009, 05:54:40 PM »

I'm really curious as to what you found out about this situation, Caminus. You're pontificating must have some merit, because I don't see you as an unintelligent person. What did you find?

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #43 on:** June 24, 2009, 05:56:07 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: parentsfortruth
Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: parentsfortruth
Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: Dawn
even the C.I.A. has records that he was validly elected pontiff, and that he was "subjected to ill/violent treatment,"

I find it a little ridiculous that they rely upon this assertion. Something is very wrong with an idea that relies upon unseen FBI docuмents to determine a validly elected Pontiff. But if you trace this claim to its source, it dissipates into thin air. Provide these alleged docuмents or cease spreading this strange rumor.

The mere fact that Siri asserted that he was "bound by the secret" of the conclave is irrefutable evidence that he was not elected Pope, since true Popes are not bound by this secret. End of story. Finished. Its over. Look elsewhere for answers to this crisis.

I find it sort of comical that you would say that the source dissipates into thin air. Tell me. How far has your own research led to finding out the source of these docuмents. I haven't completed mine yet, but I'm asking you how long it took you to give up, and dismiss it like you have.

Let me know when you find these docuмents that supposedly override canon law and the very words of the man purported to be Pope. Good luck. I stopped looking when the source was discovered. Its no accident that no one has seen them. Now unless you are calling Siri a liar and hypocrite, then I suggest you take him at his word.

You stopped looking when "the source" was discovered. So, what is your source?

Find it yourself, it took me about 10 minutes on Google.

Okay, this is where I don't talk with you anymore if you're going to assume I'm a moron. I've looked into this in depth, and I can't tell you everything I'm doing, but I have potentially found some things that could prove that this is true. I'd like to know exactly what you have that's so damning to this and makes you dismiss it as harshly as you have.

Caminus · « **Reply #44 on:** June 24, 2009, 06:51:15 PM »

The claim is traced back to a book written by Paul L. Williams entitled The Vatican Exposed: Money, Murder, and the Mafia . Mr. Williams was or is being sued for 2 million dollars for making false and injurious statements about a university. He has no credibility and he apparently makes the claim without supporting docuмentation.

Quote

In 2003, former FBI consultant Paul L. Williams, author of the recently-released Osama's Revenge, published a book called The Vatican Exposed: Money, Murder, and the Mafia (Prometheus Books). Although the book deals with alleged Vatican corruption in terms of money and power and has a decidedly liberal flavor, Williams also--almost as a side-note--includes some straightforward, objective information on the papal conclave of 1958. In what cannot be called anything other than a stunning series of claims, Williams, who is not a Catholic traditionalist, asserts:

In 1954 Count Della Torre, editor of the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, warned [Pope] Pius XII of [Cardinal Angelo] Roncalli's Communist sympathies. Other members of the "Black Nobility" expressed similar concerns.[5]
Nor did Roncalli [later known as "Pope John XXIII"] escape the attention of the FBI and CIA. The agencies began to accuмulate thick files on him and the questionable activities of other "progressives" within the Vatican, including Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini (the future Paul VI).
[...]
Pius XII had appointed Cardinal Giuseppe Siri as his desired successor.[7] Siri was rabidly anti-Communist, an intransigent traditionalist in matters of church doctrine, and a skilled bureaucrat. . . .
In 1958 [on October 26], when the cardinals were locked away in the Sistine Chapel to elect a new pope, mysterious events began to unfold. On the third ballot, Siri, according to FBI sources, obtained the necessary votes and was elected as Pope Gregory XVII.[8] White smoke poured from the chimney of the chapel to inform the faithful that a new pope had been chosen. The news was announced with joy at 6 P.M. on Vatican radio. The announcer said, "The smoke is white. . . . There is absolutely no doubt. A pope has been elected."[9] . . .
But the new pope failed to appear. Question began to arise whether the smoke was white or gray. To quell such doubts, Monsignor Santaro, secretary of the Conclave of Cardinals, informed the press that the smoke, indeed, had been white and that a new pope had been elected. The waiting continued. By evening Vatican radio announced that the results remained uncertain. On October 27, 1958, the Houston Post headlined: "Cardinals Fail to elect pope in 4 Ballots: Mix-Up in Smoke Signals Cause False Reports."[10]
But the reports had been valid. On the fourth ballot, according to FBI sources, Siri again obtained the necessary votes and was elected supreme pontiff. But the French cardinals annulled the results, claiming that the election would cause widespread riots and the assassination of several prominent bishops behind the Iron Curtain.[11]
The cardinals opted to elect Cardinal Frederico Tedischini as a "transitional pope," but Tedischini was too ill to accept the position.
Finally, on the third day of balloting, Roncalli received the necessary support to become Pope John XXIII. . . .

--Paul L. Williams, The Vatican Exposed
(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003), pp. 90-92

The footnote numbers included in Williams' text point to the following references (adapted from p. 243):

[5] Department of State confidential biography, "John XXIII," issue date: no date, declassified: February 15, 1974; see also Avro Manhattan, Murder in the Vatican, p. 31.

[7] John Cooney, The American Pope, p. 259.

[8] Department of State secret dispatch, "John XXIII," issue date: November 20, 1958, declassified: November 11, 1974.

[9] The announcer's words appeared in the London Tablet, November 1, 1958, p. 387.

[10] Houston Post, October 27, 1958, pp. 1 and 7. [Editor's Note: Novus Ordo Watch has a copy of this original article, incl. a picture of the smoke that emerged on October 26, 1958, two days before John XXIII claimed the papacy.]

[11] Department of State secret file, "Cardinal Siri," issue date: April 10, 1961, declassified: February 28, 1994.

Such are the claims of Paul L. Williams, former consultant of the FBI and "seasoned investigate reporter." So far we have been unable to get copies of the cited declassified intelligence docuмents, and thus we cannot verify whether Williams' claims about what these docuмents say are accurate. However, the mix-up in smoke signals of the conclave of 1958 is verifiable historical fact, recorded in the newspapers which reported on the conclave day of October 26, 1958, such as the New York Times and the Houston Post.
Mr. Williams' claims are very significant for the Catholic Church because it is not possible for anyone, including "French cardinals," to "annul" an accepted papal election. Nobody is able to take a valid papal election away from the Pope -- only the Pope himself can resign, and even then there are restrictions as to the validity of a resignation: "Resignation is invalid by law if it was made out of grave fear unjustly inflicted, fraud, substantial error, or simony" (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 185). It is not possible validly to elect another Pope if a true Pope is already reigning.

Please note: Novus Ordo Watch does not recommend Mr. Williams' book The Vatican Exposed. However, the information extracted from it regarding the conclave of 1958 seems to be based on the objective findings of the U.S. intelligence community and hence sufficiently reliable.

I'm not sure what an "FBI consultant" is, but I suppose it makes him sound more official. The last bolded statement is most incredible. Thus far, no one has seen these docuмents. I suspect it is because they do not exist. Until someone actually produces them, I would recommend not spreading this rumor any longer.

http://www.novusordowatch.org/story081004.htm