Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: DeMaistre on June 22, 2009, 08:45:48 PM
-
I believe that there may be evidence to support that Gregory XVII was the elected pope in 1958, but I haven't found concrete evidence to support it. I am looking into it to the best of my ability, but I can't say for sure. Whatever I do find, however, I will be sure to share if I find anything concrete to support it.
Right now, I'm a sede impedetist, meaning, I believe the throne of Peter has been usurped by someone that is a pretender in the place of the person that should rightfully be sitting there, whoever it is, but that is not a sede vacantist, who believes that there is no pope.
I hope that clarifies my position.
Hello parentsfortruth,
If you believe that Card. Siri was elected pope, don't you have to believe that he apostasized? He denied it, and even gave the sermon at John Paul II's funeral.
-
Um what? He died in 1989. There is no way he could have spoken at JPII's funeral!
-
-
I have considered De Maistre a shill for quite some time.
-
I'd like to think he's just misinformed.
-
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Siri
Although claimed by one sedevacantist group that he had actually been elected to the papacy in 1958 and 1963, only to be displaced by Angelo Roncalli (Pope John XXIII) and then Giovanni Battista Montini (Pope Paul VI)[9], Siri entirely submitted to the authority of the official popes and remained in full communion with the Church, refusing to support any sedevacantist organization. One small sedevacantist group, centered in Houston, Texas still claims him to have been the actual pope, despite Siri's own silence as to this claim. This small group, known as "Sirianists", have yet to offer any reasonable explanation[10] for the fact that Siri failed to support the Traditionalist Catholic movement, that he recognized John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II as legitimate popes, that despite his conservatism he used the Mass according to the reformed 1970 Roman Missal and the other revised sacraments, and that he signed all of the docuмents of the Second Vatican Council. The Cardinal even somewhat defended the Council, as long as it was interpreted in the light of Tradition, though he did remark that, "If the Church were not divine, this Council would have buried it".[11]. To explain Siri's silence as to what happened in the conclaves, supporters of the Siri Thesis have suggested that Siri was silenced by the conspirators' use of the Seal of the Confessional,[12] a method of silencing prelates suggested in other literature.
-
The fact remains that he recognized the post V2 Popes as valid.
-
Um what? He died in 1989. There is no way he could have spoken at JPII's funeral!
LOL
Sorry, I think that I meant JPI
-
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Siri
Although claimed by one sedevacantist group that he had actually been elected to the papacy in 1958 and 1963, only to be displaced by Angelo Roncalli (Pope John XXIII) and then Giovanni Battista Montini (Pope Paul VI)[9], Siri entirely submitted to the authority of the official popes and remained in full communion with the Church, refusing to support any sedevacantist organization. One small sedevacantist group, centered in Houston, Texas still claims him to have been the actual pope, despite Siri's own silence as to this claim. This small group, known as "Sirianists", have yet to offer any reasonable explanation[10] for the fact that Siri failed to support the Traditionalist Catholic movement, that he recognized John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II as legitimate popes, that despite his conservatism he used the Mass according to the reformed 1970 Roman Missal and the other revised sacraments, and that he signed all of the docuмents of the Second Vatican Council. The Cardinal even somewhat defended the Council, as long as it was interpreted in the light of Tradition, though he did remark that, "If the Church were not divine, this Council would have buried it".[11]. To explain Siri's silence as to what happened in the conclaves, supporters of the Siri Thesis have suggested that Siri was silenced by the conspirators' use of the Seal of the Confessional,[12] a method of silencing prelates suggested in other literature.
If you want to believe the Jєωιѕн Wikipedia re: the business of the RC Church and Greg XVII, then you have been given the free will to do so. That is with the poss exception that you may be a victim of MK Ultra.
-
I only cited Wikipedia for reference to the day he died.
-
I was referring to D
-
Go ahead, keep avoiding my question.
How did Siri create a College of Cardinals to elect a Pope while under surveillance? I'm going to follow you like a bad shadow until you give me an answer to this question.
You are just too scared to call yourselves sedevacantists. That's all that this is.
I cannot stand this dishonesty anymore, especially with Roscoe bleating every two seconds about how he isn't a sedevacantist. Yes, you actually are. Do you think conjuring up a Pope out of thin air makes you better than a sedevacantist? Do you think sedevacantists don't want a Pope? Do you think sedevacantist is a dirty word?
We are without a Pope. Whether he is in hiding or whether he doesn't exist. The Catholic of today has no Pope who can teach us or guide us. You can quibble with words all you want. Go ahead, say you're "sedeprivationist" or "sede-impedist." You know what I smell? Fear. Also: Misunderstanding of Vatican I.
It was NOT PROPHECY when they wrote about the "visible succession of Popes." CHURCH COUNCILS HAVE NOT EVER, NOR WILL THEY EVER DEAL IN PROPHECY. It said "Let those who say there SHOULD NOT be a visible succession of Popes be anathema."
In other words, let those who question the office of the Papacy itself, the democrats of the day, the advocates of collegiality, and all of the modernists who think the idea of the Vicar of Christ outmoded -- because there were many who thought this way -- be anathema.
When Siri's successor shows himself, I will acknowledge him as Pope just as you do. Until then, do you have any information about him? No? Then what exactly do you think you're accomplishing with all of this? I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to know.
-
Also, what did Christ say? "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." And "This is my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." He did not say "The gates of hell will not prevail against Peter." He said "it." As in "the Church."
Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built, yes. But the failure of this rock does not mean the failure of the Church. It simply means the biggest crisis in world history.
Christ does not quibble with words. And right here, in the way Jesus phrases things, you see that he was leaving the possibility open that Peter would fall. But the Church never will.
This is because, as we know from Daniel, THE MAN OF SIN SITS IN THE TEMPLE OF GOD. THE TEMPLE OF GOD IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
-
I think that its just another variation on the religion of man, some people just can't believe that there is no pope, they need a pope to follow, its just not enough for them to say "Sede Vacante!"and just follow the dogmas of the Catholic faith, etc.
And the entire Siri thesis pretty much relies on the testimony of one Vietnamese priest.
-
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Siri
Although claimed by one sedevacantist group that he had actually been elected to the papacy in 1958 and 1963, only to be displaced by Angelo Roncalli (Pope John XXIII) and then Giovanni Battista Montini (Pope Paul VI)[9], Siri entirely submitted to the authority of the official popes and remained in full communion with the Church, refusing to support any sedevacantist organization. One small sedevacantist group, centered in Houston, Texas still claims him to have been the actual pope, despite Siri's own silence as to this claim. This small group, known as "Sirianists", have yet to offer any reasonable explanation[10] for the fact that Siri failed to support the Traditionalist Catholic movement, that he recognized John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II as legitimate popes, that despite his conservatism he used the Mass according to the reformed 1970 Roman Missal and the other revised sacraments, and that he signed all of the docuмents of the Second Vatican Council. The Cardinal even somewhat defended the Council, as long as it was interpreted in the light of Tradition, though he did remark that, "If the Church were not divine, this Council would have buried it".[11]. To explain Siri's silence as to what happened in the conclaves, supporters of the Siri Thesis have suggested that Siri was silenced by the conspirators' use of the Seal of the Confessional,[12] a method of silencing prelates suggested in other literature.
If you want to believe the Jєωιѕн Wikipedia re: the business of the RC Church and Greg XVII, then you have been given the free will to do so. That is with the poss exception that you may be a victim of MK Ultra.
I've noticed Wikipedia getting more and more inaccurate when it comes to traditional Catholicism.
-
I don't think it's a heresy. Yet. I just think it's unjust to separate yourselves from other sedevacantists, as if we don't want a Pope, as if we are some lower species because we don't have an imaginary friend as Pope. Roscoe especially is incredibly aggravating when he tries constantly to disassociate himself from... Himself. Because whether he likes it or not, he is a sedevacantist.
You can see the same desperation in the "sedeprivationist" theory. The Popes under this so-called "Cassiacuм thesis" are material but not formal Popes. And the priests and bishops with invalid Holy Orders are therefore material but not formal priests and bishops. So we have an entire Church of material but not formal clergy -- a ghost Church, a Through the Looking Glass church. If all these ghost priests, ghost bishops and their ghost Pope suddenly have a change of heart, if they recant their errors, THEN they will be restored formally to the faith and it will once again be the Catholic Church.
Granted. If they renounce their errors, it will be. But they are not going to. And in the meantime, all those who don't make a clean break are weakening the resistance, the real Church, which is now in eclipse.
The human capacity for self-delusion really is limitless.
Sedeprivationists and Siri-ites hinder unity in an emotional sense, but not in a real sense. In general, parentsfortruth and roscoe agree with the detested "sedes" on the essentials. We probably go to the same kind of sede/trad churches. For that reason I can't say they're being divisive.
But their acolytes do show a certain reluctance to face reality -- a reluctance I understand, as nothing is harder for a Catholic than to say there is no Pope. But that doesn't change the fact that we DO NOT HAVE A POPE. Even if one is being kept in a cage somewhere in Vietnam, with bamboo shoots being shoved under his fingernails, suffering for the faith, he still can't guide us or teach us. This is why I say that the dreaded term "sedevacantism" reflects our predicament perfectly.
---
The "other side" is not so kind. I recall David Hobson saying that Bishop Pivarunas of CMRI "holds the heresy of popeless ecuмenism." Does he even know what "ecuмenism" means? And how is saying that we're without a Pope a heresy? The Church is not only without a Pope whenever one Pope dies, but there have been times where people were confused about the very identity of the Pope.
Siri-ites, I must question your discernment of spirits if fast-talking hucksters like Hobson and Malachi Martin are the guys you really want to follow. You need better spokesmen, and badly. I read all through Hobson's website and he has no proof of Siri being Pope, he just tells us to blindly believe it because he says so. Well, who are you, David Hobson?
-
He's the boogieman. And he's a BoD heretic.
-
I think that its just another variation on the religion of man, some people just can't believe that there is no pope, they need a pope to follow, its just not enough for them to say "Sede Vacante!"and just follow the dogmas of the Catholic faith, etc.
And the entire Siri thesis pretty much relies on the testimony of one Vietnamese priest.
Not really. You can cite the testimony of Cardinal Tisserant as regards the conclaves. Also, the docuмents that were cited in the book The Vatican Exposed. So it's not just one testimony, it's several sources.
-
Also, I said I am reserving my judgment on the matter for when I get the information I'm looking for, if it exists.
And I've repeated myself a bunch of times in regard to sede vacantists, and even the people that believe that BXVI is the pope.
Frankly, I think this issue is a big distraction from doing other productive things like saying an extra rosary or something. It gets really irritating going over the same things over and over. I'm investigating it to the best of my ability, and like I said, and I won't repeat myself in the future, when and if I find it, I will share it with you.
80 years ago there were people that didn't know who the Pope was. Does that mean they weren't Catholic? Of course not. It's important only that we pray for whoever the Pope is, and that we recognize his authority. Whoever the Pope is, I recognize his authority, although, he hasn't used it to bind me to anything as of yet.
Just because he's not visible right now (if this whole situation proves to be true) doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Jacinta said that the Pope will suffer much and we must pray for him. I wonder which Pope she was talking about. Certainly not fat pinko commie party man "JXXIII" and not scuмbag traitor "Paul6" and certainly not thespian "JPII". Who was she talking about?
-
-
Are you saying that the alleged apparition was no apparition at all and it is a figment of the peoples immagination? Or was there an appariton and it was a UFO or demonic or something?
-
I think that its just another variation on the religion of man, some people just can't believe that there is no pope, they need a pope to follow, its just not enough for them to say "Sede Vacante!"and just follow the dogmas of the Catholic faith, etc.
And the entire Siri thesis pretty much relies on the testimony of one Vietnamese priest.
Not really. You can cite the testimony of Cardinal Tisserant as regards the conclaves. Also, the docuмents that were cited in the book The Vatican Exposed. So it's not just one testimony, it's several sources.
Oh well, I think that he was elected pope, but he became a heretic.
-
Are you saying that the alleged apparition was no apparition at all and it is a figment of the peoples immagination? Or was there an appariton and it was a UFO or demonic or something?
Demonic is the only answer that makes any sense. And by the way Roscoe, UFOs are demonic manifestations also.
-
UFO abductee stories are MK Ultra ops and they certainly are demonic.
-
UFO is a vague term that literally can mean any object in the sky with which one is not familiar.
-
There is much information about Gregory XVII. I have found alot in just a cursory glance on the computer. For the love of pete, even the C.I.A. has records that he was validly elected pontiff, and that he was "subjected to ill/violent treatment," and then voila out comes commie John.
And as far as condoning anything, I am telling you that they can force anyone to look like they are doing something or saying something when under torture,duress, or drugging.
That was a strange time to be a Catholic. My mother remembers it well. Pious XII was alive, and they all awaited the Secret of Fatima. Then, the death of Pious and she said the world went upside down. No secret released, but worse EVERYTHING she had been taught as a young girl who went to Catholic school her whole life was changed. NOTHING was the same. She any many others then proceeded down the road to perdition, why after all if this teaching changes, eventually they will all change.
-
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.
-
There is only two alternatives to 1958-- Roncalli or Siri. Since we know that John is an anti-pope, there is no other possibility than Greg XVII being the true Pope. FBI or CIA confirmation is only one item of evidence.
-
There is only two alternatives to 1958-- Roncalli or Siri. Since we know that John is an anti-pope, there is no other possibility than Greg XVII being the true Pope. FBI or CIA confirmation is only one item of evidence.
First, you don't "know" that he is the "anti-pope" and second, produce the "evidence" or cease spreading rumors. There aren't only "two alternatives." Stop presenting yourself with a false dilemma.
-
And what part of "I am bound by the secret" don't you understand? Why can't you just take him at his word for it and move on? Why force him into positions at the mere force of your will? Because of fantastic intrigue? Wake up!
-
I believe it's much more simple than you all think.
Benedict XV taught heresy on several occasions (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/05/benedict-xv-was-antipope.html), 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:
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:
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.
-
I believe it's much more simple than you all think.
Benedict XV taught heresy on several occasions (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/05/benedict-xv-was-antipope.html), 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.
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.
Someone might attack me for this:
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:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
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
-
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.
I apologize, I meant no offense by that.
-
See bottom of the last page for the source.
-
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.
You sir, have behaved both hypocritically and arrogantly on this forum, numerous times. You accuse me of the same things, yet look at your own posts. I've yet to see you show the least bit of respect towards anyone that holds opposing views, I hardly even know what views you support, such is the extent of the bitterness you show towards all of ours. I have yet to "hold out the most vicious attacks" against anyone on this forum, and if I have, then bring forth the evidence. It seems to me that you hold all those who debate with you to be beneath you in intelligence and humility. I speak not as I think or feel, but as I have observed.
Get real. The incongruity is glaring.
No sir, you must look in the mirror.
You haven't the moral judgment to issue general warnings to other Catholics.
You are correct. Nobody needs to tell me that I am a bad Catholic. In fact, I'm not really even Catholic, the only valid sacrament I've received is Baptism. I don't need you hurling garbage at me, accusing me of being arrogant and whatever else you, or at those who I consider to be my online "friends".
-
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.
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
The fact that Mr Williams is not a Catholic gives him more credibility if you ask me-- he has no axe to grind. Just because someone is suing him doesn't mean that person has won a judgement against Mr Williams.
If his book was the only source on this it would be a different story.
All of you who insist the v2 "church' is the Catholic Church give Judaics, Prots and Moors all the reason in the world to remain right where they are-- as well as following an apostate, heretical sect yourself.
-
I am aware of the lawsuit in that case. It doesn't mean that all of his sources are bad.
People that write controversial things tend to get ganged up on. He's standing by his claim, however.
Also, he worked for the FBI as an adviser of some sort.
Believe me, if I can refute his claims and prove them to be bogus, the people here will be the first to know when I confirm that. But at the same time, if I end up finding out that his sources are correct, I will make sure that people become aware of them.
Unlike some people, I am open ONLY TO THE TRUTH. I don't dismiss something because it doesn't fit into my little pet theory. If I find out that this stuff is bogus, you can be sure I will be telling people that it is bogus. Until I do, though, it is something to CONSIDER, not throw out.
-
-
-
I think it's time to bring this up once again. If you've never seen this, I think it's well worth your time to watch. The Greek Orthodox put this video together. It doesn't cover Ratzinger, it covers "JPII" and his actions as "pope." Take a look. It could have been put together by a traditional Catholic (most of it.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEC6e8N0Wfk
-
I think it's time to bring this up once again. If you've never seen this, I think it's well worth your time to watch. The Greek Orthodox put this video together. It doesn't cover Ratzinger, it covers "JPII" and his actions as "pope." Take a look. It could have been put together by a traditional Catholic (most of it.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEC6e8N0Wfk
CONCILIAR CHURCH IS SATAN
-
I am aware of the lawsuit in that case. It doesn't mean that all of his sources are bad.
People that write controversial things tend to get ganged up on. He's standing by his claim, however.
Also, he worked for the FBI as an adviser of some sort.
Believe me, if I can refute his claims and prove them to be bogus, the people here will be the first to know when I confirm that. But at the same time, if I end up finding out that his sources are correct, I will make sure that people become aware of them.
Unlike some people, I am open ONLY TO THE TRUTH. I don't dismiss something because it doesn't fit into my little pet theory. If I find out that this stuff is bogus, you can be sure I will be telling people that it is bogus. Until I do, though, it is something to CONSIDER, not throw out.
That's good that you are trying to remain objective. Its irritating though when people declare that there are "FBI docuмents" when no one has seen them. How do they know anything like that exists? On the say so of one man who has a credibility issue. I find it humorous that the commentator asserted what had yet to be proven and then claim that its credible because it come of the American intelligence community! I'm open to the truth too, you know. Anything would make more sense than John Paul II for crying out loud. But as it stands, you can't make Siri into something he's not because you're looking for logical resolve. Siri stated that he was not the Pope, he said he was bound by the secret of the conclave, he publicly recognized the post-conciliar popes. You'd be hard pressed to avoid the conclusion that Sirianists are implying that he is a liar and a hyprocrite. I don't see how you can avoid this conclusion. Asserting that he was "under surveillance" and in "fear for his life" amounts to nothing more than heaping piles of gratuitous assertions. After awhile, all these assertions must be taken for what they are, which is objectively nothing at all but wishful thinking.
-
Let us see what the Douay fathers have to say about the times that we live in
EVERY sedevacantist posts these prophecies as if they are certainly applicable today. Yet, they could apply in EVERY generation in some respect. To CLAIM they support your THEORIES amounts to BEGGING THE QUESTION. How do you know that the Popes are anti-Christ? Reply: Because of the prophecies. How do you know they apply to today? Because they were prophesied.
-
What's a sedevacantist?
-
I agree, and I am a skeptic too, which is why I'm doing my best to get to the bottom of this. If the docuмents exist, they're going to be uncovered. If this guy made it all up, he's going to be hurting for a publisher by the time I'm done.
That book was mostly about the Vatican bank, and the part about the conclave was almost mentioned as a side note. He's very anticatholic, so it's almost as if he was saying this as if there were nothing to lose. He once wrote a book called something like, "Everything you wanted to know about the Catholic Church but were too afraid to ask." No, not Andrew Greeley, who also wrote a book with the same title.
Anyway, I haven't subscribed to this because I need the evidence, but I don't completely discount it. I've said this from the beginning.
It would be irresponsible of me to discount it until I could prove that it's wrong, and I'm sure that the Vatican isn't going out of their way to try to prove one way or another, so it's up to us to find out if there's truth to it or not (at least that's the way I see it.)
-
Plain and simple-- the actions of the v2'popes' establish that they are anti-popes. Once this reality is acknowledged, it is common sense that tells one that there has to be an explanation. Greg XVII was the favorite of Pius XII to be the next Pope just as Card Raphael was the favorite of St Pius X.
-
There are a few possibilities about this guy.
1) He's a complete fraud and is making this whole thing up. (The question then is.... why? :detective: )
2) He's a gnostic. (Meaning, "I have knowledge that you don't deserve to have because you're not chosen to have it." )
3) He didn't cite the sources properly on purpose because he was threatened somehow.
4) He's a very bad author that doesn't cite sources properly so that he doesn't have to be accountable for what he writes. Read: Bad Journalist.
Until I find out which one it is, I'm going to keep on looking until I get to the bottom of it.
-
Caminus-- do you believe there is such a thing as an anti-pope?
-
Caminus' beliefs are based entirely on emotion and he throws dogmatic theology and Divine Providence out the window. It doesn't matter at all whether he believes there is a such thing as an antipope or not.
-
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.
You sir, have behaved both hypocritically and arrogantly on this forum, numerous times. You accuse me of the same things, yet look at your own posts. I've yet to see you show the least bit of respect towards anyone that holds opposing views, I hardly even know what views you support, such is the extent of the bitterness you show towards all of ours. I have yet to "hold out the most vicious attacks" against anyone on this forum, and if I have, then bring forth the evidence. It seems to me that you hold all those who debate with you to be beneath you in intelligence and humility. I speak not as I think or feel, but as I have observed.
Get real. The incongruity is glaring.
No sir, you must look in the mirror.
You haven't the moral judgment to issue general warnings to other Catholics.
You are correct. Nobody needs to tell me that I am a bad Catholic. In fact, I'm not really even Catholic, the only valid sacrament I've received is Baptism. I don't need you hurling garbage at me, accusing me of being arrogant and whatever else you, or at those who I consider to be my online "friends".
If you think there is even a remote moral equivalence between my faults and "Catholicmartyr's" throwing out Saints and Popes and calling everyone a "schismatic" who doesn't hold his opinions then you need your head checked. Do you not realize the seriousness of these assertions? They are the gravest of accusations which no true Catholic could accept. He needs to be banned for his calumnous lies. He is of the Devil.
-
they are sock puppets and should be banned
don't engage, Caminus
-
they are sock puppets and should be banned
don't engage, Caminus
Laughable. Utterly laughable. ChantCD, would you mind telling our friend Elizabeth that she has just uttered a lie?
-
Elizabeth, you are wrong. I believe Padre Pio is a schismatic for adhering to the heretical antipopes. He may very well have been giving and receiving valid sacraments, but his ignorance to the heresies of Vatican II was not invincible and therefore he cannot be excused.
Now go look at DeMaistre's blog, and see that he promotes Pio. He shouldn't but he does.
Sock puppets indeed. Yes DeMaistre: Laughable!
-
Roscoe, you have now avoided my question for about the ten millionth time. How did Gregory XVII, if he were Pope, create a College of Cardinals and elect a new Pope? And where is that new Pope?
Don't you know, my John Lennon-worshipping, Moor-hating friend, that you are without a Pope, whether you like it or not? You think not being a sedevacantist will get you into heaven but it's more likely to keep you out. The sedevacantist position is the right one for our time and expresses the truth of our situation.
Now go and play with your imaginary friend, Gregory XX, who you just know exists without any proof whatsoever except from a bunch of potboiler-writing con men.
-
they are sock puppets and should be banned
don't engage, Caminus
You're awesome.
-
And Dawn, I'm kind of disappointed with you on this one. The CIA? And someone else talks about Life Magazine. You might as well say that Pravda has an article proving the election of Siri.
Again, I'm not saying that Siri wasn't elected Pope. But when you refuse the sedevacantist position as if it were some kind of heresy, saying that you are better because you believe in an invisible Pope, you are damaging truth and leading people on a wild-goose chase. Fine, pray for the "Pontiff" in case he's out there, but you have no proof at all that he is, and neither do I.
The dishonesty of all the Siri theorists is shown when they cannot answer my question: How did Siri make Cardinals while under surveillance? I'm going to keep repeating this so anyone who reads this thread will know that you are fantasizing and unable to face the reality of the situation.
You are being set-up, I fear. You are easy marks for someone to come out of the woodwork, saying he was elected by Siri, and who will be a fraud, part of a business scheme or cult. Good luck.
-
Let me explain, I realize that Siri was elected Pope. Now, what they did in to him in the interim I am not certain of.
I have never said that he created cardinals or anything in secret. I do not think anything of the sort would have been possible as he was under close watch until his death. Maybe he did, I have no proof. I do know that Pope Pius XII made cardinals and bishops in secret that were to uphold tradition. He did this because he knew that after his death the deluge would come.
Anyway, I am certainly sede now as I see no other person who could be pontiff.
-
I realize that Siri was elected Pope.
No, in fact you don't, for your imagination doesn't amount to reality. You have to get your mind to confirm to reality, not the other way around. There are rules to this endeavor and you're not following them very well.
-
confirm=conform
-
Roscoe, you have now avoided my question for about the ten millionth time. How did Gregory XVII, if he were Pope, create a College of Cardinals and elect a new Pope? And where is that new Pope?
Don't you know, my John Lennon-worshipping, Moor-hating friend, that you are without a Pope, whether you like it or not? You think not being a sedevacantist will get you into heaven but it's more likely to keep you out. The sedevacantist position is the right one for our time and expresses the truth of our situation.
Now go and play with your imaginary friend, Gregory XX, who you just know exists without any proof whatsoever except from a bunch of potboiler-writing con men.
I do not know how Greg XVII made cardinals but over yrs he would have a way.
As far as where the new Pope is I do not know at this time-- I hope no one is dumb enough to imagine that a catacombs scenario has never happened b4.
You are now decending into flights of delerium with your accusations that I 'worship' John Lennon or 'hate' Moors. I have never said anything remotely close to that as is available for all to read.
-
If you think there is even a remote moral equivalence between my faults and "Catholicmartyr's" throwing out Saints and Popes and calling everyone a "schismatic" who doesn't hold his opinions then you need your head checked. Do you not realize the seriousness of these assertions? They are the gravest of accusations which no true Catholic could accept. He needs to be banned for his calumnous lies. He is of the Devil.
So do you wish him to be damned for his sin? I do not. Its good to hate his error (I'll contact you via email, CM), but why do you extend this to his person? You as well CM. There is a Buddhist saying, "Hate does not cease by hate. Hate ceases by love - this is an ancient law".
-
There is a Buddhist saying
Idolater!!!!!