Author Topic: Pope Gregory XVII "Siri Proclaimed to Flock V2 Council Void (Read 8184 times)

OHCA · « **Reply #30 on:** October 24, 2014, 05:55:04 AM »

THE TROLLS ARE GETTING TOO FAT--PLEASE STOP FEEDING THEM

andyn · « **Reply #31 on:** October 24, 2014, 07:33:21 AM »

Fr. Jean-Marie Charles-Roux, a former Vatican official and intelligence officer claimed that Joseph Cardinal Siri of Genoa had been elected and also accepted the Papal office, but was then immediately shoved aside, without his actually abdicating. According to Fr. Charles-Roux, a very serious threat was delivered to Siri and the assembled Cardinals through Cardinal Tisserant, the Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals, shortly after the acceptance of office by the new Pope. Conclave ministers had already begun to burn the ballots with dry straw in the Sistine Chapel stove, sending up white smoke to announce the election of the Pope. Even as the thunderous cheers of the crowd outside could be heard by those inside the conclave, a group of cardinals in league with Tisserant commanded the ministers to change the mixture in the stove to wet straw in order to produce black smoke. When the conclave officials refused the order to send out a false signal that would indicate no electoral results, a group of Cardinals brushed the monsignors aside and began to dump wet straw into the stove. Thereafter, a “shoving match” ensued over control of the stove, and the alternating mixtures of dry and wet straw that were being put into it, caused the smoke to vary from white, to black, to white again, and finally to gray, he said.

andyn · « **Reply #32 on:** October 24, 2014, 08:30:00 AM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: BTNYC

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?

I thought Benedict XVI came out and denied that he was forced to resign?

That he did.

But if the Sockpuppet Chorus can claim that persistent "duress" caused Cardinal Siri to publicly disclaim his papacy for 31 years and to offer a Mass he believed to be sacrilegious for nearly 20 years, then what's to stop a Sedebenediceplenist from claiming that duress impelled Benedict to invalidly renounce the papacy and likewise that, under duress, he publicly lied about being under duress?

Fr. Joseph Ratzinger was a manifest heretic prior to April 19, 2005. He was thus ineligible to ever to be a pope according to Pope Paul IV's infallible cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio. The same ineligibility applies to Jorge Bergoglio. Perhaps you are not familiar with this papal bulla?

claudel · « **Reply #33 on:** October 24, 2014, 09:21:00 AM »

andysloan – sloa = andyn

Could this equation be more than a curious coincidence?
__________

Herewith a petition to Matthew. Please establish a new subforum in which all Dreary Siri Theory threads are permanently sequestered (NB: I would certainly have no objection were all BOD threads lumped in with the DSTs). Also, please make it a hidden subforum, just as the male and female subforums are now hidden to people who won't fess up to the specifics of their anatomical architecture. It would be a simple matter, I think, to add a query to the member profile; something like this:

The query: DST/BOD? followed by two check boxes, one marked Yes, the other No.

Give people a month or so to make a choice (or decline to make one, as the case may be), and then, as CI's resident Brits might put it, Bob's your uncle.

I can think of few other courses of action that would benefit so many people in terms of psychological stress reduction and consequent quality-of-life improvement. It's certainly much cheaper and much less red-tape-ridden than arranging with NASA to launch all the DST/BOD threads into solar orbit—at least, that would apply to any remaining heliocentrists hereabouts. Make it earth orbit for our resident dogmatic geocentrists.

andyn · « **Reply #34 on:** October 24, 2014, 09:59:48 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

There would be no Siri Thesis if PPVI was a good pope.

IMO, the thesis is an invention motivated from need and initiated by desperation in a vain attempt to explain how or why conciliar popes are not popes.

Unless he was held prisoner by the Cardinals, the Siri Thesis is one conspiracy theory that's just too far out and way too far reaching to be considered true.

The Siri Thesis holds that Cardinal Siri was elected in 1958.

Whether a pope is "bad or good" or "weak or strong", does not have bearing on them being pope.

The Siri Theory holds that certain infiltrator Cardinals headed by a French block, were actually Freemasons; bankrolled by International Jewry. They were directly involved in his life of a guarded selectively tortured prisoner, for 30 years.

Naturally they had to let him be in public at times, such as on the balcony of St. Peter's on the "election" of the Modernist Jew Karol Wojtya in 1978. That was not by coincidence they staged that world-wide photo-op: all over Italy rumors resounded that Siri had been elected pope at various conclaves.

In addition of course his armed captors attempted to monitor every publication "he" penned. That is why he was forced to be cryptic, always waiting for the right moment to act, which divine providence provided him in 1988.

I suggest you investigate things outside of the corporate media that America and the rest of the world has been poisoned to death with for decades +.

Cantarella · « **Reply #35 on:** October 24, 2014, 12:35:22 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Cantarella
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?

Human frailty? That doesn't mean he wasn't canonically elected the pope?

As I've been trying to explain, despite Hobson's propaganda, what happened was probably a fair bit more subtle.

Sir was elected, took the name Gregory XVII. He was immediately approached by the Cardinals who had just elected him, led by the "Dean" Freemason Tisserant. Tisserant informed him of the threats and felt that he should step down. Confronted by what he perceived to be a "change of heart / mind" by the Cardinals who had just elected him, Cardinal Siri said something along the lines of "If you don't want me, elect someone else." He probably didn't really want to be Pope, certainly not if it mean the nuking of the Vatican or murder of bishops behind the iron curtain. There are different accounts regarding the nature of this threat. In his own mind, subjectively, Cardinal Siri may have FELT that he was resigning of his own free will (for the good of the Church); objectively viewed, however, it was clearly under duress. Cardinal Siri may have assumed that the Holy Spirit would simply chose whoever He really wanted to run the Church. As things unfolded, and Cardinal Siri witnessed the ravages of Vatican II, I can only imagine that his conscience was tortured; he may very well be the Pope of whom Our Lady revealed to Sister Lucy that he would have much to suffer. Towards the end of his life, he may very well have recognized that he was the true pope. There is no evidence, however, that he did anything to carry on the true Papal succession. Could he have? Sure. I would love it if that were the case. But Hobson refuses to provide evidence.

So the case of Cardinal Siri isn't all black and white.

Yet if there's this putative Gregory XVIII, he indeed would be the greatest criminal traitor against the faith who's ever occupied the Holy See. He's lurked in the shadows for 23 years, allowing MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of souls to perish when he, according to Hobson, has slam-dunk evidence of being the Pope.

Ok, it makes sense. After all, Popes are also fallible human beings but could not the same logic apply to the alleged Gregory XVIII?. The best argument against the Siri Thesis was given my Nishant here:

Quote

Fr. Boulet, in the article on sedevacantism, explained why the Siri thesis is not possible. First, to go back to Great Schism parallels, both sides in that dispute conceded that if ever a single claimant was universally accepted by the hierarchy, the Cardinals or Roman clergy, then all the faithful would necessarily have to accept this claimant after that. The axiom "a doubtful Pope is no Pope" teaches that a Pope whose claim is openly contested by some section of the Church - the hierarchy or the Cardinals on account of a real doubt - is not able in the practical order to exercise the pontificate until that doubt is resolved. It can be resolved in two ways, one by universal acceptance of a single claimant, other by the voluntary resignation or standing down of one or more parties, so that the Church can elect another Pope, as some theologians maintain is the correct explanation of Constance.

Quote from: Fr. Boulet

the most important reason why we must discard the "Pope Siri" theory is the fundamental principle that a peaceful acceptance of a pope by the Universal Church is the infallible sign and effect of a valid election. All theologians agree on that point. Cardinal Billot says: "God may allow that a vacancy of the Apostolic See last for a while. He may also permit that some doubt be risen about the legitimacy of such or such election. However, God will never allow the whole Church to recognize as Pontiff someone who is not really and lawfully. Thus, as long as a pope is accepted by the Church, and united with her like the head is united to the body, one can no longer raise any doubt about a possible defective election

There is a rule which says that the name of any cardinal appointed in pectore had to be made public by the pope who appointed him. Thus, all cardinals appointed secretly whose name had not been revealed before the death of the pope who nominated them would automatically lose their title ... Consequently, any and every 'cardinal' that was appointed secretly by 'Pope Siri' lost their title in 1989, upon the death of Cardinal Siri, and automatically lost their right to participate in the election of 'Pope Siri's' successor.

Stubborn · « **Reply #36 on:** October 24, 2014, 12:46:11 PM »

Quote from: andyn

Quote from: Stubborn
There would be no Siri Thesis if PPVI was a good pope.

IMO, the thesis is an invention motivated from need and initiated by desperation in a vain attempt to explain how or why conciliar popes are not popes.

Unless he was held prisoner by the Cardinals, the Siri Thesis is one conspiracy theory that's just too far out and way too far reaching to be considered true.

The Siri Thesis holds that Cardinal Siri was elected in 1958.

Whether a pope is "bad or good" or "weak or strong", does not have bearing on them being pope.

Actually, it does matter because if PPVI was a good pope, there would have never been any reason for SVs to come up with any conspiracy theory - or thesis - at all.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #37 on:** October 24, 2014, 01:40:17 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

[The best argument against the Siri Thesis was given my Nishant here:

Yes, we've discussed this in the context of sedevacantism. I do not accept the fact that a kind of "convalidation" can legitimize a canonically-invalid election. That doesn't fly in my mind.

stbruno · « **Reply #38 on:** October 24, 2014, 02:56:45 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

The best argument against the Siri Thesis was given my Nishant here:

Quote

Fr. Boulet, in the article on sedevacantism, explained why the Siri thesis is not possible. First, to go back to Great Schism parallels, both sides in that dispute conceded that if ever a single claimant was universally accepted by the hierarchy, the Cardinals or Roman clergy, then all the faithful would necessarily have to accept this claimant after that. The axiom "a doubtful Pope is no Pope" teaches that a Pope whose claim is openly contested by some section of the Church - the hierarchy or the Cardinals on account of a real doubt - is not able in the practical order to exercise the pontificate until that doubt is resolved. It can be resolved in two ways, one by universal acceptance of a single claimant, other by the voluntary resignation or standing down of one or more parties, so that the Church can elect another Pope, as some theologians maintain is the correct explanation of Constance.

Quote from: Fr. Boulet

the most important reason why we must discard the "Pope Siri" theory is the fundamental principle that a peaceful acceptance of a pope by the Universal Church is the infallible sign and effect of a valid election. All theologians agree on that point. Cardinal Billot says: "God may allow that a vacancy of the Apostolic See last for a while. He may also permit that some doubt be risen about the legitimacy of such or such election. However, God will never allow the whole Church to recognize as Pontiff someone who is not really and lawfully. Thus, as long as a pope is accepted by the Church, and united with her like the head is united to the body, one can no longer raise any doubt about a possible defective election

There is a rule which says that the name of any cardinal appointed in pectore had to be made public by the pope who appointed him. Thus, all cardinals appointed secretly whose name had not been revealed before the death of the pope who nominated them would automatically lose their title ... Consequently, any and every 'cardinal' that was appointed secretly by 'Pope Siri' lost their title in 1989, upon the death of Cardinal Siri, and automatically lost their right to participate in the election of 'Pope Siri's' successor.

You have put more than one question/statement from yourself and have re-posted two other members posts. Can yo refine or refine your post/questions?

I will add this: Gregory XVII was elected, the masons put the threats on, a shoving match/fight broke out at the stove, as the masons knew the election was 100% valid, and wanted to put the Catholic world in even greater darkness on Oct, 26. 1958, to hide the fact.

At that point a trusted adherent of Pope Gregory XVII [a top official of Pope Gregory XVII's Swiss Guard] from within the 1958 Conclave on 10-26-58, (absolutely out of necessity) broke protocol and got through all the traps set by ʝʊdɛօ-Masonry ... and somehow was able to pass a note with the fact that Gregory XVII was elected ... to a runner, who got it to Vatican Radio who confirmed/announced "A pope is elected!"

That heroic Swiss Guard of Gregory XVII's was "fired" by the filthy mason Roncalli who brought anarchy unprecedented ... and Millions+++ likely to Hell.

People hated Roncalli and his devil spawn of phony popes and their Apostate Council... as every true Catholic does today.

I am honored to be a obedient follower of the True Popes, like that Swiss Guard, like Fr. Tran, other priests, and faithful laymen world-wide!
[/b]

"... he who is (lawfully) elected is Pope ... He governs the Church from that moment[/u], and no other act is required to give him further authority."

"When all that we have thus far described has been done [the precise laws of a conclave have been followed], he who is elected is Pope, in all right and justice, and no man can in any way call his election in question or endeavor to invalidate it. He governs the Church from that moment, and no other act is required to give him further authority. Some, it is true, assert that the coronation is in some way necessary to the perfection of the election. However, this ceremony is by no means essential, for we find that Clement V. threatens with excommunication those who assert that bulls issued before the coronation are not binding." (From: The Life and Acts of Pope Leo XIII: Preceded by a Sketch of the Last Days of Pius IX and the Origin and Laws of the Conclave, edited by Fr. Joseph Edward Keller, pg. 201, Imprimatur 1879)[/font]

Here was my logical refutation of Nishant's question on cardinals made "in secret" having to tell who they were to the public:

Nishant:

In brief: Roncalli and his masons, with their plotted successful usurpation at the 1958 Conclave, knowingly put the entire Catholic world into schism, except of course Christ's Chosen Vicar, the hostage pope, Gregory XVII, and his trusted adherents. Schimatics are not Catholics as you know.

Regarding Gregory XVII's secret cardinals:

It certainly is Church teaching that what are traditionally understood as secret Cardinals or Cardinals created 'in pectore' [i.e. specific Cardinals created in normal times by a secured Pope who has free movement, (for instance) in the Holy Father's private chapel at the Vatican in a purposely secret ceremony] (do) lose their rights as Cardinals upon the death of the appointing Pope. Yet as stated above- regarding the Hostage Pope, Gregory XVII's truly warlike situation- all of the elder Pontiff's actions to carry on the mission of the Church in 1988 by necessity, were performed in a way to avoid detection/certain death for him and his Princes by the armed usurpers [Freemasons].

Hence, His Holiness [an expert in doctrine] creating Cardinals who could convene a lawful conclave (which included designating a *Camerlengo), giving His Cardinals a special code-type communication system, His formulation of a strategic Continuation of Papacy Plan [rules of conclave, etc.,] and His specific commands of to/for His Cardinals to carry out His orders, were all conducted/administered in the (war) traditions of the Catacombs - that is "out of view" of the enemy (for a time) - so as the flock could regroup [purify and strengthen itself] - to then in God's precise timing - come back and conquer the enemy.

*"On the death of the Pontiff the Cardinal Camerlengo, as representative of the Sacred College, assumes the charge of the papal household, notifying to all the Cardinals of the Church the death of the late Pope and the impending election. Every Cardinal has the right to vote in the Conclave, but he must be present in person to do so." -F. A. FORBES, The Life of Pius X, p. 62, 1918 Imprimatur

Pope Gregory XVII (and His Cardinals) like numerous other persecuted Popes (and their Cardinals) throughout Church History, successfully implemented the Catacomb (war) strategy... .

"Qui mange le Pape, meurt!"

May I ask who you adhere to as pope, whom you must be subject to in order to be eligible for Heaven?

stbruno · « **Reply #39 on:** October 24, 2014, 03:07:55 PM »

Quote from: stbruno

Restated had tech issue (page crashed as I was typing):

You have put more than one question/statement from yourself and have re-posted two other members posts. Can you please refine your post/questions?

stbruno · « **Reply #40 on:** October 24, 2014, 03:16:52 PM »

Quote from: stbruno

In brief: Roncalli and his masons, with their plotted successful usurpation at the 1958 Conclave, knowingly put the entire Catholic world into schism, except of course Christ's Chosen Vicar, the hostage pope, Gregory XVII, and his trusted adherents. Schimatics are not Catholics as you know.

"a most violent conflict with the Roman Church such that there will be great tribulations..."

(Prophecy of The Venerable Bernard de Bustis, 15th Century): "...near the time of the Antichrist, will come... a most violent conflict with the Roman Church such that there will be great tribulations. At this time, a schism will be produced in the bosom of the Church on the occasion of the election of the pope... there is one who will be called the true pope, but he will not be truly so. He will persecute the true pope and all those who obey him, so that the majority will declare themselves for the antipope rather than for the true pope. But this antipope will have a sad end, and the true one will remain the unique and uncontested pontiff. ..."

Ladislaus · « **Reply #41 on:** October 24, 2014, 03:35:30 PM »

These prophecies and circuмstantial evidence mean nothing in terms of establishing the existence of Gregory XVIII. Even if it might strongly suggest Gregory XVII, there's zero proof of a Gregory XVIII. He doesn't exist.

tdrev123 · « **Reply #42 on:** October 24, 2014, 03:48:06 PM »

I went to one of those websites run by Hobson, and I emailed 'Fr' Khoat, I asked him who is are Pope, what is his name and do you have any evidence? How can you expect somebody to believe this?

All he responded was, "Your Pope is Gregory XVIII, All are subject to him" it was in ALL caps...

Ya that definitely made me believe lol

2Vermont · « **Reply #43 on:** October 24, 2014, 04:28:29 PM »

Quote from: tdrev123

I went to one of those websites run by Hobson, and I emailed 'Fr' Khoat, I asked him who is are Pope, what is his name and do you have any evidence? How can you expect somebody to believe this?

All he responded was, "Your Pope is Gregory XVIII, All are subject to him" it was in ALL caps...

Ya that definitely made me believe lol

antoinette · « **Reply #44 on:** October 24, 2014, 08:00:16 PM »

Quote from: tdrev123

I went to one of those websites run by Hobson, and I emailed 'Fr' Khoat, I asked him who is are Pope, what is his name and do you have any evidence? How can you expect somebody to believe this?

All he responded was, "Your Pope is Gregory XVIII, All are subject to him" it was in ALL caps...

Ya that definitely made me believe lol

Gosh, that sounds a bit rude. I can understand, if he is not familiar with who you are and the hierarchy is in hiding, why would he trust you? Surely you were taught how to speak to a priest and mocking him I'm also sure was not the way.