This is an important brief piece (below) for many reasons ... a must read. I post it here, as it shows that a pope, Paschal II, under duress, with his free-will impaired, is not held culpable for signing decrees that are heretical. Untrained "folk" have tried to say Gregory XVII ("Siri") lost his office as pope, by signing the V2-Council Docuмents [which Lefebvre did also sign, every one], yet that is impossible; as "Siri's" signature was coerced under grave death threats.

He said the Council was a terrible suffering for him. In fact, Gregory XVII when he had his chance, publicly proclaimed to Catholics that the V2 Council was invalid. He was a top Theologian and knew its pestilent decrees would have indeed (thought[/b] to have) been part of the infallible Magisterium. His telling all Catholics they could never be bound by the V2 Council, would have been a 101 Schismatic act, for a mere Cardinal to proclaim ... .


The Pontificate of Paschal II  (1099-1118)[/u].

(From: "Fortes in Fide" Vol. 1, No. 5.)

     Once again the whole of Christendom was shaken, this time by the investiture controversy.  The Emperor Henry V, after having imprisoned the Pope, forced him to make promises and concessions that were impossible to reconcile with Catholic doctrine.  After his release from captivity, Paschal II hesitated for a long time before he annulled the acts to which he had consented while under duress.  Despite a considerable number of warnings from saints, cardinals and bishops, he continued to postpone both his own retraction, and the excommunication of Henry V, despite the fact that it was universally desired.  A movement thereupon began that swept through the entire Church, which was directed against the Pope and which declared him to be suspect of heresy, and at the same time entreated him to turn back under pain of losing his pontificate.

     Vidigal then proceeds to quote the evidence and the historical facts relating to the struggle by saints, cardinals and bishops against Paschal II, thus demonstrating that the theology of this period of the Middle Ages admitted the hypothesis of a heretical pope and that such a pontiff could, in consequence, lose his pontificate.
     St. Bruno, Bishop of Segni and Abbot of Monte Cassino, was the leader of the opposition to Paschal II in Italy.

     Paschal was very well aware that St. Bruno did not deny the hypothesis that a Pope could be deposed.  He tried to pre-empt the issue by dispossessing the saint of his abbacy on the pretext that:  "If we do not remove him from his office he will, by the force of his arguments, relieve us of the government of the Church."

     And when Pope Paschal at last retracted, at a synod convened at Rome specifically to examine the question, St. Bruno declared: "Praise be to God, for behold the very Pope himself condemns this alleged privilege (that of investiture by temporal rulers) which is a heresy."  St. Bruno, in speaking out in this way, for the first time gave public expression to the extent of his mistrust of the Pope's orthodoxy.

     St. Bruno was not the only saint of the period to admit that Paschal could have fallen into heresy.  In 1112, Guido of Burgundy, Archbishop of Vienne and the future Pope Callistus II, called a provincial synod which was attended, amongst others, by St. Hugh of Grenoble and St. Godfrey of Amiens.  With the approval of these two saints the synod revoked the decrees the Emperor had forced on the Pope, and sent a letter to Paschal II telling him, "should you, in spite of our absolutely refusing to believe it possible, choose an alternative path and refuse ratification of our decision, may God protect you, for were this to be the case we should be obliged to withdraw our allegiance from you."

     These words are a threat to break with Paschal II, and are to be explained only by the fact that the bishops meeting at Vienne had in mind three main ideas:
     1. That to deny the Church's teaching about investitures was heretical.
     2. That the Pope had acceded to this heresy.
     3. That a Pope who was eventually proved heretical lost his office and, consequently, should not be obeyed.[/b]
     This interpretation is borne out beyond a shadow of doubt by the contemporary letters of St. Ivo of Chartres.

This is an important brief piece (below) for many reasons ... a must read. I post it here, as it shows that a pope, Paschal II, under duress, with his free-will impaired, is not held culpable for signing decrees that are heretical. Untrained "folk" have tried to say Gregory XVII ("Siri") lost his office as pope, by signing the V2-Council Docuмents [which Lefebvre did also sign, every one], yet that is impossible; as "Siri's" signature was coerced under grave death threats.

He said the Council was a terrible suffering for him. In fact, Gregory XVII when he had his chance, publicly proclaimed to Catholics that the V2 Council was invalid. He was a top Theologian and knew its pestilent decrees would have indeed (thought[/b] to have) been part of the infallible Magisterium. His telling all Catholics they could never be bound by the V2 Council, would have been a 101 Schismatic act, for a mere Cardinal to proclaim ... .

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches in order to constitute a genuine [true] act of the will: the act must be performed spontaneously [freely] -without constraint or force- (and that) man can be coerced or forced to do something against his will in two ways: by violence and by fear (VI. 4, 5,6). That which is done under exterior violence is wholly involuntary (VI. 5).


Prophecies of Anne Catherine Emmerich on True Pope

53.16  October 1, 1820 [Anne Catherine Emmerich] "We must pray that the Pope may not leave Rome, for unheard-of-evils would result from such a step. We must pray to the Holy Ghost to enlighten him, for they are even now trying to exact something of him [Force him to sign the V2 Docuмents]. The Protestant doctrine, as also that of the Greeks, is spreading everywhere... ."


53.17  October 4, 1820  [Anne Catherine Emmerich]  "When I saw the Church of St. Peter in ruins, and the manner in which so many of the clergy were themselves busy at this work of destruction, none of them wishing to do it openly in front of the others, I was in such distress that I cried out to Jesus with all my might, imploring His mercy. Then, I saw before me the Heavenly Spouse, and He spoke to me for a long time. . .   He said, among other things, that this translation of the Church [pope(s) going into exile] from one place to another meant that she would seem to be in complete decline. But she would rise again; even if there remained but one Catholic, the Church would conquer again because she does not rest on human counsels and intelligence."

This is an important brief piece (below) for many reasons ... a must read. I post it here, as it shows that a pope, Paschal II, under duress, with his free-will impaired, is not held culpable for signing decrees that are heretical.

I have heard this same argument from the "Paul VI was a prisoner of the Masons" theorists, who exculpate him from pretty much every major act of his pontificate on the grounds that they were made under duress that impaired his free will.

There is every bit as much (or should I say as little) positive evidence to support that as there is to support that Cardinal Siri considered himself to be pope whilst publicly acting to the contrary, so why should I accept your thesis and not theirs?

Pope Benedict XVI's abdication has all the outward appearances of having been made under duress, and plenty of rumors to that effect as well. Why should I not accept Sedebenediceplenism?

If the Masonic cabal is as omnipresent and powerful and deeply entrenched as to force Cardinal Siri / Gregory XVII to behave as he did under duress, why not accept the Sedeprivationist thesis on the grounds that all of the pontiffs since John XXIII have been forced to act under the same duress, impeding their free will?

If Cardinal Siri was actually elected Pope and was forced to not accept under duress, which is usually said to be his family would be murdered, if that is true that means he was willing to sacrifice ALL OF HUMANITY FOR HIS FAMILY!

Although the "Hierarchy in Exile" theory would make much more sense than the default simplistic sedevacantist position of "there is no pope", this is a good point. Why would the Cardinal remain in silence for all his life, as if he did not trust the protection of the Holy Ghost or would be willing to sacrifice earthly matters for the will of God and why would God allows this to happen?

It seems that people are quick to forget that the Church is still guided by Divine Assistance under the protection of the Holy Ghost.

The sede position doesn’t make sense.

The way I understand it is it is a dogma that we cannot be without a Pope – and the men in Rome since 1958 who have been obviously trying to destroy the Church, were heretics before they were “elected” and cannot be the true pontiffs.

Quote from: tdrev123

If Cardinal Siri was actually elected Pope and was forced to not accept under duress, which is usually said to be his family would be murdered, if that is true that means he was willing to sacrifice ALL OF HUMANITY FOR HIS FAMILY!

Although the "Hierarchy in Exile" theory would make much more sense than the default simplistic sedevacantist position of "there is no pope", this is a good point. Why would the Cardinal remain in silence for all his life, as if he did not trust the protection of the Holy Ghost or would be willing to sacrifice earthly matters for the will of God and why would God allows this to happen?

It seems that people are quick to forget that the Church is still guided by Divine Assistance under the protection of the Holy Ghost.

The hostage pope Gregory XVII, did admit at the end of his life he had made mistakes, and made amends ... he created Cardinals to carry on the Apostolicity of the Church.

A thought ... there are in everyone's town likely n.o. church's that were once beautiful sacred Catholic Church's in the 1950's. That are being defiled daily ... how many are blocking the doors with their bodies to prevent this? Answer: Zero.

I would not judge a pope who had very possibly atomic and certainly other weapons pointed at him 24/7. The masons knocked out the Catholic Monarchies and then they went for the jugular at the 1958 Conclave.


A Most Sad Historical Precedence

The hidden events of the 1958 Conclave thus fulfilled the stated goal of the Lodge B'nai - B'rith in 1936:

"Before the Jєωιѕн King can reign in the world, the pope in Rome must be dethroned." (See: Fr. Pranaitis's Imprimatured The тαℓмυd Unmasked on this subject.) Regarding the implication that [a certain] Cardinal McIntyre denied that the report of Giuseppe Siri's election was anything more than a "story," it would not be the first time that a cardinal, or the entire college of cardinals, had lied about the results of a papal election.

In 1378, the cardinals who had just elected Bartolomeo Prignano, who took the name Pope Urban VI (1378-89), to the supreme pontificate, became afraid of what might have been the reaction to their choice by the Roman mob which burst into the conclave, and announced instead that they had elected the Roman Cardinal Tibaldeschi. The confusion and bitterness that resulted from that one lie of the fearful cardinals, caused the forty-year long Great Western Schism, which produced a succession of antipopes and nearly brought the Church to ruin.


"Have you criticized God's mercy or justice, or murmured against His providence?"
(Source: "An Examination of Conscience" - Sins Against The Second Commandment)

"As to the Popes, though they are the Vicars of Jesus Christ, they are not impeccable, for they do not cease to be men; and if they fall, even as did St. Peter himself, their sins are the actions of the man and not of the Pontiffs; nor do these entirely personal failings in the least impair the sanctity or the authority of the Holy See, which always remains equally worthy of respect and obedience." -Fr. F. X. Schouppe: A Course Of Religious Instruction: Apologetic, Dogmatic, And Moral: For The Use Of Colleges And Schools, 1879, Imprimatur
 

"The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatise from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church."
-Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90

Prophecy of Pius X

"I see the Russians at Genoa." - Pope St. Pius X Vision

Giuseppe Sarto's (Pius X) Prophetic Visions of Giuseppe Siri (Gregory XVII)

In 1909, during an audience for the general chapter of the Franciscan Order, Pope Pius X suddenly fell into a trance. The audience waited in reverent silence. When he awoke, the Pope cried out:

"What I see is terrifying! Will it be myself? Will it be my successor? What is certain is that the Pope will quit Rome, and in leaving the Vatican he will have to walk over the dead bodies of his priests.

Just prior to his death (August 20, 1914), Pope Pius X had another vision:

"I have seen one of my successors, of the same name (Giuseppe), who was fleeing over the bodies of his brethren. He will take refuge in some hiding place; but after a brief respite he will die a cruel death."

The same Pope also foretold war for the year 1914, and during his death agony (in 1914), he said:

"I see the [1.] Russians at Genoa."

[1.] "... Russians at Genoa" Reference to the Bolshevika masonic captors of Pope Gregory XVII - who guarded the hostage pope's every move in Genoa (Italy), where His Holiness was exiled.