Something funny to you about this? If true, the difference is that Pius IX was converted (eventually being expelled by the Masons), whereas Roncalli actively promoted the Masonic agenda as "pope". Pius IX was converted by the grace of office due to protection of the papacy by the Holy Spirit. Had he not converted, God would have struck him down rather than allowing him to propagate error from the Holy See. Roncalli, on the other hand, was not legitimately elected, and that was the entire point of allowing Siri to be elected, forcing him out, and then planting the illegitimate imposter on the See. Masons / Communists / Jєωs who planned the entire thing knew full well that God would prevent a legitimate pope from destroying the Church. Perhaps they learned this precisely from the Pius IX scenario who once he had been elected was converted and turned on them.
This is why some sedes claim that Pius IX (and those after him) was an Anti-Pope (amongst other reasons.) If you give a pass to Pius IX for being a liberal freemason at the outset and consider him a valid Pope even though he was a liberal Freemason then you have to give a pass to the others (especially John XXIII) to remain consistent with your position. The Siri Thesis/Position gives you some wiggle room here but...
You could hold that he was an Anti-Pope at first (remember those in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ are automatically excommunicated ipso facto and thus wouldn't have the grace of office if we're being consistent) but then converted to right-believing Catholicism and denounced his Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ some time after his election, confessed, and abjured and became a good standing member of Catholicism and became a valid Pope sometime after his conversion. The only problem with this is...do we have evidence of this?
Topic: Italian Lodge Claims John XXIII (Read 5093 times)