Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Graehame on April 07, 2012, 02:56:20 PM
-
[While Giuseppe Siri may never have announced publicly that he'd been elected pope, he did throw us a few intriguing hints to that effect some months before he died in a taped interview with Italian journalist Benny Lai. This took place on 18 Sep. 1988. Lai later included a transcript of the recording as the final chapter (XVII) of his book, "Siri, Il Papa non Eletto", or The Un-Elected Pope, which came out in 1993.]
Siri : “A newly elected Pope-- barring a miracle, & the Lord doesn’t do unnecessary miracles-- what does he know, poor man, of the task awaiting him? He has to be integrated into his new position. The question which settles a pontificate is the choice of the Secretary of State, because it is he who must educate the Pope. Not all Popes become such after going through the school to become one. The schooling, whether he wants it or not, occurs before the election, when the positions, suitability for the positions, & dedication to the positions, are well matched.”
Now, readers will realize this is not simply a commentary on the papacy in general if they note the sense of personal involvement, of frustration. Siri notes, “Not all Popes become such after going through the school to become one.” What does this mean? Could he be telling us that whereas he'd been duly prepared & elected by the College of Cardinals, he still refused, even after the vote was nearly unanimous? Or is it more likely that after being voted in perhaps a 2d or 3d time, he finally accepted but could not take office because of a coup d’etat engineered by prominent participants in the Conclave?
While Siri speaks here in the 3d person, in the next paragraph he switches suddenly to the 1st person, thus indicating the true subject of his discourse. Indeed, the emotion in his voice intensifies, as he turns to the crucial matter at hand. There is a sense of immediacy that cannot be denied :
“I say this because I have great remorse. I have faith in the forgiveness of the Lord, &, therefore, I am at peace. During the first 2 conclaves in which I participated, my candidature was presented by an influential cardinal. He himself told me that all the French were behind him. [the Liberal wing, who were not Siri's natural allies]. The others, then, followed the French [the rest of the Liberals & Radicals, as shown next...] The Germans held back, but gradually, along the way, joined the rest [the Radicals]. I said no, & if you elect me I will say no [suspecting a setup-- if he lets the Libs & Rads elect him then what will he owe them in exchange?]. I have made a mistake, I understand it today. Today? For some years. I did wrong, for I would have avoided completing certain actions... [the Council?] I wish to say-- but I am afraid to say it-- making certain mistakes. Therefore I have had great remorse & I have asked forgiveness of God. I hope that God forgives me.”
The reason for his remorse, his sense of guilt, obviously involves his role regarding the papacy-- but why? If the official version that he was never elected pope is correct, then why should any of this bother him? And how are we to interpret the details he gives us about the first 2 conclaves he participated in, those of 1958 & 1963? While he doesn’t come out & say he was elected, those who know the politics of the situation might conclude just that.
For more clues as to his plight, let us turn briefly to a well-circulated article by Louis Hubert Remy describing an interview that took place on 18 May 1985, at Siri’s palace in Genoa. What prompted this was an earlier incident recorded by Paul Scortesco, cousin to Prince Borghese, President of the 1963 conclave. According to Scortesco, during that conclave Cardinal Tisserant left to meet with representatives of B’nai B’rith, & told them Siri had been elected! [Illegal under canon law to leave during the Conclave.] They in turn said that for the new pope to continue as such would immediately precipitate another round of persecutions against the Church.
During the 1985 interview at the Cardinal’s palace in Genoa, when Remy & his two companions, Francois Dallais & Monsieur de la Franquerie, asked Siri himself about the above incident, his response was precise & firm. “No,” he said, “no one left the Conclave.”
Asked whether he had been elected pope, however, the Cardinal reacted quite differently… After a long silence, he 'raised his eyes to heaven' as though in pain & suffering. Joining his hands, he said gravely: “I am bound by the secret. This secret is horrible. I would have books to write about the different conclaves. Very serious things have taken place. But I can say nothing.”
Remy thinks that “if he had not been elected pope, he would have said so” with the same sort of firm, categorical “No,” given the previous question. He thus concludes that Siri had in fact been elected, but, feeling “bound by the secret”, “took refuge behind it.” Indeed, Remy goes on to say that Siri told another one of his “trustworthy” friends that he had in fact been elected twice.
-
I've said elsewhere that my views of all this are heavily conditioned by a close study of Fr. Herman Kramer's "The Book of Destiny", which is a chapter-by-chapter interpretation of the Book of the Apocalypse. Let me add that Fr. Kramer wrote in 1955, before all this happened, & I have no idea what he would have thought about my conclusions. I suspect he might have summarily rejected them-- but that would be the knee-jerk reaction of any pre-V2 priest. Pre-V2, it would have been my reaction as well.
That said, let's see where & how the Siri Thesis is consistent with Kramer's interpretation of the Book of the Apocalypse, & with other End Times prophecy.
...& the woman clothed with the sun who appears at the beginning of Ch. 12 is not the Blessed Virgin, as many believe (& as even some popes have taught-- see Pope Paul 6's encyclical “Signum Magnum”, 13 May 1967), but is the Church itself. The very 1st thing we're told about this woman clothed with the sun is that she's with child, but the Blessed Virgin had her child long ago. The woman flees from the dragon (who is Satan) into the wilderness-- but we're told elsewhere that the Blessed Virgin won't flee from Satan, but will vanquish him. It would be utterly incongruous for the Blessed Virgin, who could have instant recourse to Her Son, ever to flee from Satan. We're told near the end of Ch. 12 that the dragon intends to "make war with the rest of her seed", but the Blessed Virgin had only one child.
These details don't fit the Blessed Virgin at all, but they precisely fit the Church-- the bride of Christ.
Kramer writes, "...she gives birth to some definite person who is to rule the Church... It then points to a conflict waged within the Church...this is unmistakably a (contested) papal election..." [Not provably Siri, but arguably so.]
Whether the Siri Thesis is true or not, the woman (the Church) fleeing into the wilderness probably refers to the Traditionalist wing of the Church, which exists post-V2 in disobedience on the fringe of schism, many parishes almost in hiding. In the days to come the Trads may be forced into actual schism, or even into actual hiding.
All of this takes place in Ch. 12, at the end of which the dragon (Satan) calls forth the Beast of the Sea (the AntiChrist) at the beginning of Ch. 13. This hasn't happened yet, or at most it's happening now, so it's time to turn to a consideration of the private revelations & prophecies that lend support to these interpretations.
St. Malachy foretold that there would be only 1 pope after the present one (Benedict 16). This is very consistent with an End Times chronology that puts us close to the end of Ch. 12 & the beginning of Ch. 13.
Prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi (d. 1226) : “There will be an uncanonically elected pope who will cause a great schism, there will be diverse thoughts preached which will cause many, even those in the different orders to doubt-- yea, even agree with those heretics which will cause my Order to divide, then will there be such universal dissensions and persecutions that if those days were not shortened even the elect would be lost.” (Rev. Culleton, The Reign of Antichrist, Tan Books, 1974, p. 130.)
If the election of John 23 was uncanonical, hence invalid, then it fits very closely this Franciscan prophecy in that John 23 started the apocalyptic nightmare of the Great Apostasy that is now upon us.
Around noon on 13 Oct. 1884 Pope Leo XIII was praying at the altar after celebrating Mass when he heard Satan promise to destroy the Church if he was given 75 to 100 years in which to do so, to which Jesus agreed. Pope Leo then wrote the Prayer to St. Michael, calling upon the archangel to defend the Church against Satan, & directing that it be prayed at every Low Mass. The Leonine prophecy is linked directly to V2 by the fact that one of the first things V2 did was to order the discontinuation of the Prayer to St. Michael.
4th, 1884 + 75 years = 1959. That is 1 year after the Conclave of 1958 that elected John 23. Only 3 months after his election, on 25 Jan. 1959, J23 took the whole Church by surprise with his announcement that he intended to convene an Ecuмenical Council.
...and that brings us to the Message of Fatima. What was released by the Vatican in 2000 was manifestly incomplete-- a fact with which even Pope Benedict 16 agreed during his 2010 visit to the Fatima Shrine. Those who read the secret, including Cardinals Ottaviani, Oddi, Ciappi, & Biffi, & the late Fr. Malachi Martin, all agreed that the 3d Secret revealed a great apostasy in the Church that would begin at the top.
Pope Pius XII warned about this apostasy during his pontificate. I believe I read the quote on this site but I've been unable to relocate it. I'll look it up elsewhere if I have to, but for now I'm gonna assume the rest of you know what I'm talking about. If so, then-- as unthinkable as it is-- the conspiracy that led to shoving aside Siri in favor of Roncalli was probably very conscious & deliberate, & probably had its origins long before the Conclave.
Several posters here have argued strongly that V2 & the NO Mass were planned well ahead of time, & were thoroughly intended to be deceptive-- a theory which which I agree. If so, then how much of a leap is it to assume that the conspirators planned to nominate a Traditionalist Cardinal at the Conclave, then shove him aside in an uncanonical fashion in order to elect an antipope in his place?
-
To whoever powted the reference to the John Vennari "refutation" of nthe Siri Thesis-- OK, I found it. I'm working on a response now.
-
My thoughts on the subject, from an earlier post, slightly edited, - I think someone brought up the Siri thesis. This theory seems self-defeating. If Cardinal Siri were ever elected Pope, then we fall into still greater difficulties, particularly if we take sedevacantist reasoning for granted. Wouldn't he have lost his office, for not only accepting Vatican II, saying the new Mass, using the new rites, and in addition to all this, giving public veneration to alleged antipopes and notorious heretics? The theory lacks positive corroboration and doesn't escape the very dilemma it was intended to solve.
He also wrote a certain letter to Archbishop Lefebvre on June 22, 1988 - to ask him not to break from the Church. Should he not rather have told his underground clergy to get in touch with Archbishop Lefebvre, or others like him, inform them of the truth concerning the election, news they who had been so baffled with the goings on would have received with elation, and work with them? I was myself favorable to it at one time, but frankly, it seems to run into one insurmountable difficulty after another.
I don't underestimate the theory, considered as such. I agree with you that it would be the most powerful explanation of what has happened, if only it were true It has in particular significant ecclesiological strengths the need for which I think most sedevacantists are oblivious to. It maintains, if it were true, very nicely the indefectibility of the Roman Church. It maintains an actual Petrine hierarchy, even if in hiding or exile. It also has the advantage of having historical precedent, which sedevacantism as such doesn't, and as a morally certain position must be, since there has never been a sucession of antipopes without there also having been a true succesion to oppose it.
For these and other similar reasons, I believe His Eminence would prefer Catholics to remain affiliated with some institution like the ICK, cofounded by two men who both received their priestly formation under him.
-
In 2006 Catholic Family News editor John Vennari wrote an article purporting to refute the Siri Thesis, which I actually find to be rather weak.
http://www.cfnews.org/Siri.htm
This post is a point-by-point counter refutation. For reasons of space it can't be totally comprehensive, but I'll do the best I can.
1. "The fact that a Cardinal receives the necessary votes in a conclave does not in itself make him Pope. The Cardinal must accept the office in order to become Sovereign Pontiff."
The Siri Thesis proposes that Siri did in fact accept, & chose the papal name Gregory XVII, but was then persuaded to step aside; so Vennari's objection here has no meaning. Since Vennari himself alludes to this alleged chain of events, his statement is even more mystifying.
2. "Cardinal Tisserant reportedly admitted that irregularities did indeed occur at the 1958 conclave."
This statement actually works against Vennari's theory.
3. "These irregularities were also alluded to by Cardinal Siri in an oft-quoted 1985 interview: 'I am bound by the secret. This secret is horrible.' While this indicates that 'serious things have taken place' at recent conclaves, it also reveals that Cardinal Siri was certainly not the Vicar of Christ. As one astute priest observed, only the Sovereign Pontiff is not bound by conclave secrets, so the fact that Siri said, 'I am bound by the Secret' demonstrates he was not Pope."
...unless the secret that Siri referred to was not the secret of the '58 Conclave, but the secret of the confessional. We've established that V2 & the NO Mass were planned well in advance to be deceptively perpetrated on the Church-- but neither of those events could have come about in the absence of a pope to promulgate them. So a necessary part of this conspiracy is the previous installation of an antipope. Nor could an antipope be installed without the use of a mechanism to compel dissenting Cardinals to keep silent-- hence the use of the confessional.
4. "After the 1958 election, Cardinal Siri gave public obeisance to Pope John XXIII and recognized him as Vicar of Christ. He did likewise with Popes Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II. If Cardinal Siri were truly a 'Secret Pope', what sort of scoundrel was he to give public obedience to men whom he knew to be impostors?"
I don't propose Siri for sainthood, I merely suspect-- not "know", but suspect-- that he may have been validly elected pope in 1958. A weak man? Probably. But by what mechanism would he have been persuaded to step down in 1958? Explanations have included threats against his life & the lives of his family, persecutions against Catholics in Eastern countries, and so forth & so on. So once he even considers stepping aside, what's the very next step? You turn to the camerlengo & ask, 'Is this canonical? Can I even do this?' And if the camerlengo says, 'Sure you can;' then as an ultra-Traditionalist Cardinal, Siri was strongly predisposed to accept the ruling of the camerlengo. It may have been years before he even began to suspect he'd been lied to-- a conclusion that at first he can be expected to have strongly resisted. After all-- it's an idea that I resisted for 30+ years.
...and once you've accepted John 23 as the legitimate pope, once years later you begin to suspect otherwise, at what point do you develop enough certainty to go public & openly oppose him? Especially when you have no proof? What do you say? "Oops-- I made a mistake?"
Siri may have thought-- in fact he probably did think-- that by remaining silent & recognizing the successors of John 23 as legitimate he was practicing humility & making a huge personal sacrifice to prevent the biggest schism since the Avignon popes. Maybe he thought that adhering to a false pope was better than dividing the Church by having 2 or 3 of them running around excommunicating one another. Can you honestly say that the present situation is materially worse than that would have been?
5. "...Cardinal Siri participated in all the post-1958 conclaves: 1963 and the two in 1978. Why would Pope Gregory XVII take part in false conclaves when he was already Pope?"
For the reasons given above.
6. "Cardinal Siri participated in the Second Vatican Council, which was called, if the Siri Thesis is correct, by a Holy Father who was neither Holy nor the Church’s Father. Siri accepted the decisions of Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition."
Again, for the reasons given above. I have reference to a detailed refutation of Vennari's article--
http://www.thepopeinred.com/defense.htm
"(Siri’s) many interventions during the Council were all directed to block progress & promote the passage of conservative statements. (Siri) stated that the Vatican II Council... was a terrible suffering for him. He termed the Council 'the greatest mistake in history', as docuмented in the book by Benny Lai, The Unelected Pope (1993:296-97). The UPI reported more than 10 years after V2 that 'Cardinal Siri suffered from a...nervous condition specifically at the Council.'"
Vennari himself agrees that, "Cardinal Siri recognized Vatican II to be a disaster. He said, 'If the Church were not Divine, the Council would have buried her.'"
7. "He adopted the reforms, celebrated the Novus Ordo Mass, ordained priests in the New Rite, and consecrated bishops in the New Rite."
Ah-- but did he really?
"The Remnant Newspaper reported that churches in Genoa looked the same in 1989 as they had in 1940. (Priests offered Mass facing the altars with no conciliar tables in sight.) Siri was Genoa's active archbishop until he was 81, long after the mandatory retirement age of 75... But (immediately) after granting an interview to Louis H. Remy...Siri was forced into retirement. One year & nine months later he was dead."
"There is (also) evidence he covertly ordained priests for the Church in eclipse."
8. "What sort of man does 'our last true Pope' turn out to be? Why would he in any way submit to this destructive Council if he knew it to be the work of papal impostors?"
For reasons given above. Once again, I'm not proposing the man for sainthood. I'll grant that on the surface his actions look weak, but if it were written down somewhere that only a strong man can be pope then we'd have to disqualify half of them.
1st, he probably accepted the opinion of the camerlengo that he could withdraw canonically. So it may be useful to ask, "Would the camerlengo really have done that?"
I refer now to :
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3304
"The camerlengo (Benedetto Cardinal Masella) was chosen by the 12 or so cardinals, now here... under the guidance of Eugene Cardinal Tisserant... Meanwhile, most of the other of the world's 55 cardinals hastened toward Rome..."
I've been able to find nothing on the theology of Cardinal Masella specifically, but clearly he was a Curial candidate. And since the Roman Curia has been one of the major forces within the Church pushing for greater liberalism-- especially since his election was rushed thru rather than waiting for the other Cardinals to arrive-- I conclude that Masella & a majority of the cardinals who elected him were probably part of the conspiracy. Possibly I do an injustice to their memories, but clearly something very wrong happened to the Church between 1958 & 1962. I believe these men were at the root of it, because it could not have happened without their collusion.
2d, it may have been years-- during or after V2-- before Siri fully realized what had been done, & that he was in fact the true pope. And 3d, what could he do then? By that time John 23 was probably already dead. Paul 6 was masquerading as pope, Siri had no evidence, & there are indications that he was being closely watched by the Vatican. Siri himself said that his life was in danger if he spoke about what happened at any of the Conclaves.
Unthinkable? Robert Calvi was murdered, possibly with Vatican collusion. Ditto Michael Sindona. I suspect this is gonna get me in trouble with some of you, but there's strong evidence that Pope John-Paul I was murdered with the assistance of Cardinal Villot. Whether Vatican complicity in any of these murders is true or not, any or all of them could have been presented to Siri as evidence of what would happen to him if he got out of line. Such a threat would have been highly credible. (Note, for those of you who aren't very good at reading nuance, I'm not saying that any of this is true-- merely that it could have been made to seem so.)
9. "Lastly, if the 'Siri Thesis' were true, then every Cardinal at the 1958 conclave is implemented in the swindle. None of them could be forced to go along with such a scandal, and none of them could be legitimately 'bound by the Secret' of the Conclave..."
...again we have the "secret". And once again, if the prelates who were responsible for planning V2 & the NO Mass were capable of such deliberate deviousness, then surely they were capable of making up a list of the Cardinals most likely to rebel & ensuring their silence thru the use of the confessional.
10. "Cardinal Siri died in 1989. If the Siri Thesis is true, the papacy came to an end 17 years ago with no successor in sight."
I have posted elsewhere on this site why I believe that is precisely in accord with various End Times prophecies, including the Book of the Apocalypse.
In conclusion, the "refutation" of the Siri Thesis repeatedly mis-states what the Siri theory actually says, essentially setting up a straw man only to knock it down. It relies for its force on supposing what various people-- mainly Cardinal Siri-- should have done, instead of looking for plausible reasons why they did what they in fact did do. And it concludes, as the Pope in Red site points out, "...(according to John Vennari) 'The Siri Thesis'...is untenable because it is unthinkable. ...But it is thinkable to John Vennari that the man who substituted a new modernist religion for the ancient faith, new sacraments, & extinguished the sacrament of Orders...was the true Pope."
...and that is precisely my point in a nutshell. It is unthinkable to me "that the man who substituted a new modernist religion for the ancient faith...was the true Pope." Rather than that, I would prefer to think-- as crazy as it sounds on the surface-- that maybe Siri really was elected pope.
I'd like to conclude by quoting from an eminent 19th Century Cardinal & close associate of John Cardinal Newman, Henry Edward Cardinal Manning-- "The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ & 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, & Bosius that Rome shall apostatise from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ, & return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, & shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs...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." (Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90.)
-
Nishant-- An excellent post.
"If Cardinal Siri were ever elected Pope, then we fall into still greater difficulties... Wouldn't he have lost his office, for not only accepting Vatican II, saying the new Mass, using the new rites, and in addition to all this, giving public veneration to alleged antipopes and notorious heretics?"
1st of all, no member of the clergy has lost his office by accepting V2, although a few have by rejecting it. 2d, there is conflicting evidence regarding whether or not Siri ever said the New Mass. What he definitely didn't do was reconfigure churches in his diocese according to the mandates of V2. There were no "conciliar tables" in Genoa. And 3d, as I pointed out above, it may have been years before Siri realized he'd been lied to, & that he was the true pope. By that time his options were limited. In recognizing J23, P6, & so forth he may have considered that he was practicing humility & making a huge personal sacrifice to prevent the biggest schism since the Avignon popes. As for your "notorious heretics" remark, I don't think it's quite so cut-&-dried as all that. Nor, along with Matthew, do I think it's particularly useful to call other people-- even popes who were manifestly in error-- heretics. Siri may not have agreed they were literally heretics. If he did agree, then he may have come to that conclusion c. 1970, or 1980, or 1985. It may be clear to you that he should have resigned. Within the Church I'm sure that it often looks different. In any bureaucracy there are always some compromises that you have to make in order to survive. Sometimes those compromises take us over an invisible line that we didn't even realize we were crossing until much later.
"The theory lacks positive corroboration and doesn't escape the very dilemma it was intended to solve."
By its very nature, I agree for the most part with your 1st statement-- except that the late Fr. Malachi Martin was a low-level participant in the Conclave & made some public statements years later to the effect that Siri was elected, but that his election had been "set aside". There was also an FBI file opened on Roncalli which indicated that Siri had been elected. So the theory is not entirely without evidentiary foundation. As to your 2d statement, I suppose you're alluding to Siri's weakness. Once again, I'm not trying to canonize the guy.
"Should he not rather have told his underground clergy to get in touch with Archbishop Lefebvre, or others like him, inform them of the truth concerning the election...and work with them?"
I, for one, would have been much happier if he had. But I'm not sure how useful it is to speculate on what someone in a really peculiar position "should have done". Neither of us knows what constrained his actions. You're assuming that Siri was a free agent. The evidence suggests, on the contrary, that he was closely watched & in fear iof his life.
"I agree with you that it would be the most powerful explanation of what has happened... It has in particular significant ecclesiological strengths the need for which I think most sedevacantists are oblivious to. It maintains, if it were true, very nicely the indefectibility of the Roman Church."
...and it's consistent with End Times prophecy.
"It maintains an actual Petrine hierarchy, even if in hiding or exile."
No longer. I think that the Siri lineage died with Siri, so that the Chair is now truly vacant. The Cardinals who elected Roncalli were all dead by the time the College gathered to elect Ratzinger, which would make his election invalid by reason of the fact that all of the Cardinals who elected him had invalid appointments.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, I believe that just as the ancient Hebrews were deprived of the Levite priesthood for their idolatry & disobedience, we are now in the process of being deprived of the papacy, & ultimately of our Catholic priesthood, as punishment for our impiety.
"...there has never been a sucession of antipopes without there also having been a true succesion to oppose it."
...until now.
-
If Pope Gregory Did lose his office, it is up to a future Council to decide. I still think that taking a Papal Name means he was legally elected and that--- as Caminus correctly informs us--- is a Dogmatic fact.
It is well known also that Card Siri was personal choice of Pope Pius XII( student of Rampolla--- and a much closer and more adept student than Della Chiesa).
-
I agree with you that it would be the most powerful explanation of what has happened, if only it were true It has in particular significant ecclesiological strengths the need for which I think most sedevacantists are oblivious to. It maintains, if it were true, very nicely the indefectibility of the Roman Church. It maintains an actual Petrine hierarchy, even if in hiding or exile. It also has the advantage of having historical precedent, which sedevacantism as such doesn't, and as a morally certain position must be, since there has never been a sucession of antipopes without there also having been a true succesion to oppose it.
.
A very splendid paragraph indeed and I do think Pope Gregory Was legally elected.
-
I said no, & if you elect me I will say no [suspecting a setup-- if he lets the Libs & Rads elect him then what will he owe them in exchange?.
So the arch-liberals elect an arch-conservative to an authoritarian position of absolute power on the sheer hope that he will feel grateful and enact their liberal policies? And then, having gone to all that trouble of conspiring to elect a candidate totally at odds with their views, not five minutes later -- before he even makes it out onto the balcony -- they all suddenly change their minds and "persuade" him to quit? Sorry, the whole theory is absurd on its face -- like arguing that the 1968 Democratic National Convention actually nominated Richard Nixon for president, but then persuaded him to quit in the space before he made it up to the podium to give his acceptance speech.
-
John 23 is an anti-pope.
-
I said no, & if you elect me I will say no [suspecting a setup-- if he lets the Libs & Rads elect him then what will he owe them in exchange?.
So the arch-liberals elect an arch-conservative to an authoritarian position of absolute power on the sheer hope that he will feel grateful and enact their liberal policies? And then, having gone to all that trouble of conspiring to elect a candidate totally at odds with their views, not five minutes later -- before he even makes it out onto the balcony -- they all suddenly change their minds and "persuade" him to quit? Sorry, the whole theory is absurd on its face -- like arguing that the 1968 Democratic National Convention actually nominated Richard Nixon for president, but then persuaded him to quit in the space before he made it up to the podium to give his acceptance speech.
It's not as absurd as it appears at first glance. See the forces of the anti-Church have often succeeded in getting a pope of their choosing who they thought would be weak and easy to control. Pius X is a good example, in the 1903 Conclave when it became apparent that Giuseppe Sarto (Pius X) was to become Pope he protested to the liberal Cardinal Gibbons "But I know nothing of world affairs" to which the Cardinal replied "So much the better." Sarto's candidacy was also pushed by Montini's family because they thought he would be easy to control, however when he received the grace of the Holy Office everything changed. So what had to be done was they had to elect a Pope shove him aside and then and then elect someone else (a fake) to show to the world. SOMEONE WHO WOULD BE FREE FROM THE GRACE OF THE PAPAL OFFICE because the real pope would have been cast aside.
-
In 2006 Catholic Family News editor John Vennari wrote an article purporting to refute the Siri Thesis, which I actually find to be rather weak.
Yes, very weak, he obviously had his conclusion when he wrote his argument. Most of the arguments against the Siri thesis try to make it more simple than it is. Another fellow who wrote a refutation also just took a very superficial look at the evidence and then rejected the theory.
-
In 2006 Catholic Family News editor John Vennari wrote an article purporting to refute the Siri Thesis, which I actually find to be rather weak.
http://www.cfnews.org/Siri.htm
This post is a point-by-point counter refutation. For reasons of space it can't be totally comprehensive, but I'll do the best I can.
1. "The fact that a Cardinal receives the necessary votes in a conclave does not in itself make him Pope. The Cardinal must accept the office in order to become Sovereign Pontiff."
The Siri Thesis proposes that Siri did in fact accept, & chose the papal name Gregory XVII, but was then persuaded to step aside; so Vennari's objection here has no meaning. Since Vennari himself alludes to this alleged chain of events, his statement is even more mystifying.
2. "Cardinal Tisserant reportedly admitted that irregularities did indeed occur at the 1958 conclave."
This statement actually works against Vennari's theory.
3. "These irregularities were also alluded to by Cardinal Siri in an oft-quoted 1985 interview: 'I am bound by the secret. This secret is horrible.' While this indicates that 'serious things have taken place' at recent conclaves, it also reveals that Cardinal Siri was certainly not the Vicar of Christ. As one astute priest observed, only the Sovereign Pontiff is not bound by conclave secrets, so the fact that Siri said, 'I am bound by the Secret' demonstrates he was not Pope."
...unless the secret that Siri referred to was not the secret of the '58 Conclave, but the secret of the confessional. We've established that V2 & the NO Mass were planned well in advance to be deceptively perpetrated on the Church-- but neither of those events could have come about in the absence of a pope to promulgate them. So a necessary part of this conspiracy is the previous installation of an antipope. Nor could an antipope be installed without the use of a mechanism to compel dissenting Cardinals to keep silent-- hence the use of the confessional.
4. "After the 1958 election, Cardinal Siri gave public obeisance to Pope John XXIII and recognized him as Vicar of Christ. He did likewise with Popes Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II. If Cardinal Siri were truly a 'Secret Pope', what sort of scoundrel was he to give public obedience to men whom he knew to be impostors?"
I don't propose Siri for sainthood, I merely suspect-- not "know", but suspect-- that he may have been validly elected pope in 1958. A weak man? Probably. But by what mechanism would he have been persuaded to step down in 1958? Explanations have included threats against his life & the lives of his family, persecutions against Catholics in Eastern countries, and so forth & so on. So once he even considers stepping aside, what's the very next step? You turn to the camerlengo & ask, 'Is this canonical? Can I even do this?' And if the camerlengo says, 'Sure you can;' then as an ultra-Traditionalist Cardinal, Siri was strongly predisposed to accept the ruling of the camerlengo. It may have been years before he even began to suspect he'd been lied to-- a conclusion that at first he can be expected to have strongly resisted. After all-- it's an idea that I resisted for 30+ years.
...and once you've accepted John 23 as the legitimate pope, once years later you begin to suspect otherwise, at what point do you develop enough certainty to go public & openly oppose him? Especially when you have no proof? What do you say? "Oops-- I made a mistake?"
Siri may have thought-- in fact he probably did think-- that by remaining silent & recognizing the successors of John 23 as legitimate he was practicing humility & making a huge personal sacrifice to prevent the biggest schism since the Avignon popes. Maybe he thought that adhering to a false pope was better than dividing the Church by having 2 or 3 of them running around excommunicating one another. Can you honestly say that the present situation is materially worse than that would have been?
5. "...Cardinal Siri participated in all the post-1958 conclaves: 1963 and the two in 1978. Why would Pope Gregory XVII take part in false conclaves when he was already Pope?"
For the reasons given above.
6. "Cardinal Siri participated in the Second Vatican Council, which was called, if the Siri Thesis is correct, by a Holy Father who was neither Holy nor the Church’s Father. Siri accepted the decisions of Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition."
Again, for the reasons given above. I have reference to a detailed refutation of Vennari's article--
http://www.thepopeinred.com/defense.htm
"(Siri’s) many interventions during the Council were all directed to block progress & promote the passage of conservative statements. (Siri) stated that the Vatican II Council... was a terrible suffering for him. He termed the Council 'the greatest mistake in history', as docuмented in the book by Benny Lai, The Unelected Pope (1993:296-97). The UPI reported more than 10 years after V2 that 'Cardinal Siri suffered from a...nervous condition specifically at the Council.'"
Vennari himself agrees that, "Cardinal Siri recognized Vatican II to be a disaster. He said, 'If the Church were not Divine, the Council would have buried her.'"
7. "He adopted the reforms, celebrated the Novus Ordo Mass, ordained priests in the New Rite, and consecrated bishops in the New Rite."
Ah-- but did he really?
"The Remnant Newspaper reported that churches in Genoa looked the same in 1989 as they had in 1940. (Priests offered Mass facing the altars with no conciliar tables in sight.) Siri was Genoa's active archbishop until he was 81, long after the mandatory retirement age of 75... But (immediately) after granting an interview to Louis H. Remy...Siri was forced into retirement. One year & nine months later he was dead."
"There is (also) evidence he covertly ordained priests for the Church in eclipse."
8. "What sort of man does 'our last true Pope' turn out to be? Why would he in any way submit to this destructive Council if he knew it to be the work of papal impostors?"
For reasons given above. Once again, I'm not proposing the man for sainthood. I'll grant that on the surface his actions look weak, but if it were written down somewhere that only a strong man can be pope then we'd have to disqualify half of them.
1st, he probably accepted the opinion of the camerlengo that he could withdraw canonically. So it may be useful to ask, "Would the camerlengo really have done that?"
I refer now to :
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3304
"The camerlengo (Benedetto Cardinal Masella) was chosen by the 12 or so cardinals, now here... under the guidance of Eugene Cardinal Tisserant... Meanwhile, most of the other of the world's 55 cardinals hastened toward Rome..."
I've been able to find nothing on the theology of Cardinal Masella specifically, but clearly he was a Curial candidate. And since the Roman Curia has been one of the major forces within the Church pushing for greater liberalism-- especially since his election was rushed thru rather than waiting for the other Cardinals to arrive-- I conclude that Masella & a majority of the cardinals who elected him were probably part of the conspiracy. Possibly I do an injustice to their memories, but clearly something very wrong happened to the Church between 1958 & 1962. I believe these men were at the root of it, because it could not have happened without their collusion.
2d, it may have been years-- during or after V2-- before Siri fully realized what had been done, & that he was in fact the true pope. And 3d, what could he do then? By that time John 23 was probably already dead. Paul 6 was masquerading as pope, Siri had no evidence, & there are indications that he was being closely watched by the Vatican. Siri himself said that his life was in danger if he spoke about what happened at any of the Conclaves.
Unthinkable? Robert Calvi was murdered, possibly with Vatican collusion. Ditto Michael Sindona. I suspect this is gonna get me in trouble with some of you, but there's strong evidence that Pope John-Paul I was murdered with the assistance of Cardinal Villot. Whether Vatican complicity in any of these murders is true or not, any or all of them could have been presented to Siri as evidence of what would happen to him if he got out of line. Such a threat would have been highly credible. (Note, for those of you who aren't very good at reading nuance, I'm not saying that any of this is true-- merely that it could have been made to seem so.)
9. "Lastly, if the 'Siri Thesis' were true, then every Cardinal at the 1958 conclave is implemented in the swindle. None of them could be forced to go along with such a scandal, and none of them could be legitimately 'bound by the Secret' of the Conclave..."
...again we have the "secret". And once again, if the prelates who were responsible for planning V2 & the NO Mass were capable of such deliberate deviousness, then surely they were capable of making up a list of the Cardinals most likely to rebel & ensuring their silence thru the use of the confessional.
10. "Cardinal Siri died in 1989. If the Siri Thesis is true, the papacy came to an end 17 years ago with no successor in sight."
I have posted elsewhere on this site why I believe that is precisely in accord with various End Times prophecies, including the Book of the Apocalypse.
In conclusion, the "refutation" of the Siri Thesis repeatedly mis-states what the Siri theory actually says, essentially setting up a straw man only to knock it down. It relies for its force on supposing what various people-- mainly Cardinal Siri-- should have done, instead of looking for plausible reasons why they did what they in fact did do. And it concludes, as the Pope in Red site points out, "...(according to John Vennari) 'The Siri Thesis'...is untenable because it is unthinkable. ...But it is thinkable to John Vennari that the man who substituted a new modernist religion for the ancient faith, new sacraments, & extinguished the sacrament of Orders...was the true Pope."
...and that is precisely my point in a nutshell. It is unthinkable to me "that the man who substituted a new modernist religion for the ancient faith...was the true Pope." Rather than that, I would prefer to think-- as crazy as it sounds on the surface-- that maybe Siri really was elected pope.
I'd like to conclude by quoting from an eminent 19th Century Cardinal & close associate of John Cardinal Newman, Henry Edward Cardinal Manning-- "The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ & 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, & Bosius that Rome shall apostatise from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ, & return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, & shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs...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." (Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90.)
Counter to your counter:
1) Wrong. Supposing Siri accepted, but was then persuaded to step aside, the end result is the same: When the conclave concluded, he was not Pope.
2) A lot of things "reportedly" happen. Supposing, for the sake of argument, there were irregularities in the conclave, we do not know whether they were invalidating irregularities, or non-invalidating irregularities. In any case, we do not know whether such irregularities had anything to do with Cardinal Siri (if in fact there were any irregularities).
3) Nope. Cardinals do not confess to eachother in a conclave. This idea is as gratuitous as it is imaginitive.
4) Another supposed refutation that amounts to nothing more than an imagination directed toward a conclusion you want to maintain. Nothing to support any of these wild imaginings.
5) Same
6) On the contrary, his helplessness demonstrates he was powerless to stop V2, which would not be the case if he were Pope.
7) There is no doubt that he said the new "mass" and "consecrated" in the new rite. Like EWTN, he hung on to what they would let him hang on to.
8) See #4
9) The seal of the confessional is not relevent to papal conclaves.
10) Have it your way.
Concluding remarks: See #4
-
In 2006 Catholic Family News editor John Vennari wrote an article purporting to refute the Siri Thesis, which I actually find to be rather weak.
Yes, very weak, he obviously had his conclusion when he wrote his argument. Most of the arguments against the Siri thesis try to make it more simple than it is. Another fellow who wrote a refutation also just took a very superficial look at the evidence and then rejected the theory.
A superficial look is all that ought to be required (for people with common sense).
People without it end up solipsists (i.e., One who lives in his own world).
This is the punishment inherent in sedevacantism: A slow drift into insanity.
-
John 23 is an anti-pope.
Which one? There are two.
-
In 2006 Catholic Family News editor John Vennari wrote an article purporting to refute the Siri Thesis, which I actually find to be rather weak.
Yes, very weak, he obviously had his conclusion when he wrote his argument. Most of the arguments against the Siri thesis try to make it more simple than it is. Another fellow who wrote a refutation also just took a very superficial look at the evidence and then rejected the theory.
A superficial look is all that ought to be required (for people with common sense).
People without it end up solipsists (i.e., One who lives in his own world).
This is the punishment inherent in sedevacantism: A slow drift into insanity.
What is 'sedevacantism'?
-
John 23 is an anti-pope.
Which one? There are two.
:roll-laugh1:
-
In 2006 Catholic Family News editor John Vennari wrote an article purporting to refute the Siri Thesis, which I actually find to be rather weak.
Yes, very weak, he obviously had his conclusion when he wrote his argument. Most of the arguments against the Siri thesis try to make it more simple than it is. Another fellow who wrote a refutation also just took a very superficial look at the evidence and then rejected the theory.
A superficial look is all that ought to be required (for people with common sense).
People without it end up solipsists (i.e., One who lives in his own world).
This is the punishment inherent in sedevacantism: A slow drift into insanity.
What is 'sedevacantism'?
Catholic Protestantism
-
Isn't that an oxymoron?
-
Isn't that an oxymoron?
Precisely.
-
Sedevacantism is the belief that "The seat (the Chair of Peter) is vacant". It usually derives from a suspicion (or the belief) that Giuseppe Siri was canonically elected at the Conclave of 1958, but then was persuaded to step aside in an uncanonical fashion.
It is not (as Seraphim unequivocally states) "Catholic Protestantism".
...and Seraphim, since you persist in ridiculing the sincere beliefs of people who are looking for the truth, & in deliberately mis-stating those beliefs to conform with your own prejudices, I will respond to your point-by-point post rebutting my arguments regarding the Siri Thesis, but after that I will no longer respond to anything you post. Anyone who believes that a sincerely held, carefully reasoned position can be superficially evaluated with a cursory glance, as you said in a previous post, is unworthy of my efforts.
...and Matthew, if this gets me banned then so be it. I'm not saying that he's a heretic, merely that he's uncharitable & he doesn't make any sense.
-
...and roscoe, how is it that the tagline on your posts refers specifically to sedevacantism, although you profess not to know what it is?
-
MeganProFide-- "So the arch-liberals elect an arch-conservative to an authoritarian position of absolute power on the sheer hope that he will feel grateful and enact their liberal policies?"
No, they nominate him in the expectation that he can't possibly get elected. This happens all the time in political circles in the U.S. "OK-- so you won't support our candidate. We'll support yours on this 1 ballot. If he fails to get elected, then you have to agree to support our candidate on the next ballot."
"And then...they all suddenly change their minds and 'persuade' him to quit? Sorry, the whole theory is absurd on its face..."
It has already been established between me & other posters on this site that V2 was a conspiracy to get ambiguously worded docuмents accepted, so that they could be given a post-Conciliar radically liberal "spin". For that to be true, the conspirators had to ensure that whoever occupied the Chair of Peter would go along with their schemes. They'd tried this before, electing popes whom they thought would be liberal, but the grace of the Holy Spirit always got in the way. (See the post above by Thursday.) In order to circuмvent that grace, it is my assertion that they planned to elect Siri in a canonical fashion & then uncanonically persuade him to quit with extravagant threats so they could elect their anti-pope. Viewed in this light, there is nothing absurd about it whatsoever.
How else can you explain John 23's refusal to release the 3d Secret of Fatima, Paul 6's promulgation of the Novus Ordo, John-Paul 2's notorious concelebrations with heretics & even pagans, & Benedict XVI's teaching that Protestants are not heretics?
Seraphim-- "1) Wrong. Supposing Siri accepted, but was then persuaded to step aside, the end result is the same: When the conclave concluded, he was not Pope."
That is an over-simplification which relies for its force on the logical fallacy of equivocation-- using 1 word in 2 different senses. When you say suppose he "accepted", you're saying suppose he accepted his election as the legitimate pope. When you conclude "he was not pope", you're saying he wasn't the apparent, visible pope. Those are 2 entirely different things. The Siri Thesis maintains, & certain witnesses have testified, that he chose the papal name Gregory XVII. If that is true, then he was canonically elected. Any subsequent balloting would be uncanonical.
"2) A lot of things 'reportedly' happen."
I don't suggest that because Cardinal Tisserant "reportedly" alluded to irregularities at the Conclave that this necessarily proves anything, nor am I trying to prove anything. I merely maintain that John 23's refusal to release the 3d Secret of Fatima, Paul 6's promulgation of the Novus Ordo, John-Paul 2's notorious concelebrations with heretics & pagans, & Benedict XVI's teaching that Protestants are not heretics are impossible to explain if these alleged popes were guided & protected from error by the Holy Spirit. The best explanation for how & why they are not so guided & protected is the Siri Thesis, which receives support from the late Fr. Malachi Martin, Fr. Jean-Marie Char-Roux, former FBI consultant Paul L. Williams (who cited declassified FBI docuмents indicating that Siri had been elected), & many other witnesses. I repeat, the Siri Thesis cannot be definitively proven-- it's just the best available explanation of the observed facts.
"3) Nope. Cardinals do not confess to each other in a conclave." and "9) The seal of the confessional is not relevent to papal conclaves."
You can't prove this. These are just 2 more examples of your gratuitous assertions.
"4) Another supposed refutation that amounts to nothing more than an imagination directed toward a conclusion you want to maintain."
I was merely showing that there is a logical sequence of events that leads towards the observed result. Once again, I'm not trying to prove that anything did happen-- merely that it's possible.
"6) On the contrary, his helplessness demonstrates he was powerless to stop V2, which would not be the case if he were Pope."
It certainly would be the case if he wasn't generally recognized as pope.
"10) Have it your way."
I said that I've posted elsewhere on this site why I believe the Siri Thesis is precisely in accord with various End Times prophecies, including the Book of the Apocalypse. And you have nothing to say to the contrary.
-
John 23 is an anti-pope.
Which one? There are two.
:roll-laugh1:
There were two popes called JOHN XXIII. No joke Both were Anti-Popes
The first JOHN XXIII reigned for 5 years during the great western schism from 1410 - 1415
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_John_XXIII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_John_XXIII)
http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=John_XXIII (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=John_XXIII)
and then John XXVIII also reigned for 5 years from 1958 - 1963
-
My understanding is that Pope John from GWS recanted his heresy and is therefore not considered an anti-pope.
-
I wrote an article a few months back regarding Cardinal Siri's legacy in Italy and in Genoa but never published it. Some new information there with excerpts from major Italian newspapers and testimony from the local clergy.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Cardinal-Siri-and-the-Dissent-of-Genoa
-
Those who go for the Siri Thesis are almost always influenced by cloak-and-dagger stories. While there is certainly much that is cloak-and-dagger going on in the Vatican, the Church didn't get infiltrated without a conspiracy, I actually believe these particular stories are engineered BY the usurpers to generate more confusion, like with their "third secret of Fatima."
The whole story of the white smoke makes no sense. It has a diabolical touch to it, that tinge of mockery that I've noticed always surrounds demonic lies. Just think about it for two seconds. They elect a conservative Pope, send out the white smoke, and then five minutes later think "Oops, we made a boo-boo" and then they cancel the smoke?
The Church has been overrun by these Machiavellian plotters; do you think they come this far after decades if not centuries, only to do something as boneheaded as to elect a true Pope in front of the world and then clumsily try to stop the smoke? Who do you think these people are, the Keystone Kops? On the one hand, you ascribe demonic ingenuity to them, and then on the other, they act like bumbling clowns?
Then there the other problems: They say Cardinal Siri was threatened and so he had to play along with them. Do you know why Cardinals wear red? To remind them they owe it to shed their blood for Christ if necessary. So Cardinal Siri almost certainly lost the papacy if he ever had it.
Where the Siri thesists really show their weakness is when it comes to the question of how a successor would have been elected. He dies and a crack team of traditional Cardinals -- how many do you suppose still existed by that point? -- despite being under constant surveillance and with their lives threatened, somehow elect a new Pope, who then also goes into hiding?
But to someone who believes in theory, they don't want to hear it, to them it's exciting, it's like being an insider to dark doings, they probably feel enlightened and are tickled by being privy to devious manipulations. It's like reading a spy novel. But the truth is that they don't know a thing about what really happened. Those who want the real truth will stick to what can be known with the information we have been given, not to speculations about murders in the Vatican and cardinals fighting over smoke signals, all this Malachi Martin-style Godfather III-type hogwash.
-
Now, this isn't to say, again, that there aren't cօռspιʀαcιҽs. Just that we don't know what they are.
Certainly the fact that JPI died 33 days -- a highly significant number -- after being elected is very telling. But why would they murder him? There is nothing about him that seems threatening to the plans to destroy the Church.
Therefore, though this is wild speculation -- which at least I admit! -- I would say it's more likely that he didn't die at all, and that this was some kind of Masonic ritual where JPI "died" like Christ only to be resurrected symbolically as JPII. The devil loves that kind of symbolism, he uses it over and over obsessively.
I was writing a post about Anti-Christ yesterday that I haven't put up yet. It shows how the devil constantly uses the death-and-resurrection theme, because he is the ape of God.
The Anti-Christ will be the fullest expression of this. In the Apocalypse, it mentions how the beast receives a "wound," one that should be fatal. He apparently temporarily disappears, i.e. dies, and is then "resurrected" by the False Prophet... It is at this point that "all the earth worships the beast." This suggests to me that he will actually be rejected like Christ at first -- which will give him a certain integrity in the eyes of the world. Think of how heretics sometimes appear like martyrs, they may appear to suffer for Christ, though it's really only for their interpretation of Christ. The Anti-Christ will be by far the trickiest version of this.
All of this is an imitation of the life of Christ. You can see it in secret society rituals where initiates are placed in coffins, then rise up out of them, now a member of the cult. You can see it in staged media rituals like Apollo 13, where it looks like the craft is doomed and then there's a rebirth. It is a symbolic, Satanic boast about how Satan is "born again" after the Church exiled him to the shadows. When Anti-Christ comes, he will truly attain maximum power.
Not many people can follow me into this territory, it is too far-out, but for those who know how the devil operates, you will see the pattern.
-
Those who go for the Siri Thesis are almost always influenced by cloak-and-dagger stories. While there is certainly much that is cloak-and-dagger going on in the Vatican, the Church didn't get infiltrated without a conspiracy, I actually believe these particular stories are engineered BY the usurpers to generate more confusion, like with their "third secret of Fatima."
Re-read that paragraph, first sentence, people who go for the Siri thesis are influenced by conspiracy theories, second sentence The Church has been taken over via infiltration and conspiracy, third sentence, some of the theories are engineered by the usurpers themselves. What evidence do you have that they engineered the Siri thesis? Do you think Paul Scortesco who first wrote about Siri being elected in the 1970s burned himself alive in his own bed after his letters were published to create a theory to confuse people?
The whole story of the white smoke makes no sense. It has a diabolical touch to it, that tinge of mockery that I've noticed always surrounds demonic lies. Just think about it for two seconds. They elect a conservative Pope, send out the white smoke, and then five minutes later think "Oops, we made a boo-boo" and then they cancel the smoke?
Yes that is exactly what the plan was, elect a true pope, shove him aside and then elect an anti-pope who would be free from the effects of the Holy Ghost.[/quote]
Then there the other problems: They say Cardinal Siri was threatened and so he had to play along with them. Do you know why Cardinals wear red? To remind them they owe it to shed their blood for Christ if necessary. So Cardinal Siri almost certainly lost the papacy if he ever had it.
As if that is the only factor he had to consider. What were the threats?, what optons did he have? Innocent II fled to France after Anecletus II stole his office, it was only after St. Bernard came to the rescue that the papacy was restored.
Where the Siri thesists really show their weakness is when it comes to the question of how a successor would have been elected. He dies and a crack team of traditional Cardinals -- how many do you suppose still existed by that point? -- despite being under constant surveillance and with their lives threatened, somehow elect a new Pope, who then also goes into hiding?
Not part of the thesis.
But to someone who believes in theory, they don't want to hear it, to them it's exciting, it's like being an insider to dark doings, they probably feel enlightened and are tickled by being privy to devious manipulations. It's like reading a spy novel. But the truth is that they don't know a thing about what really happened. Those who want the real truth will stick to what can be known with the information we have been given, not to speculations about murders in the Vatican and cardinals fighting over smoke signals, all this Malachi Martin-style Godfather III-type hogwash.
What we know is that there was 5 minutes of what smoke billowing out of the Sistine Chapel 2 days before Roncalli got elected. It's not too much of a stretch in light of what's happened since to suggest that the real pope was elected at that time and that his pontificate was suppressed.
Not sure why quotes didn't work.
-
It is very important to keep in mind that whenever there has been an anti-pope, there has been a rival claimant to the Tiara.
-
The whole story of the white smoke makes no sense. It has a diabolical touch to it, that tinge of mockery that I've noticed always surrounds demonic lies. Just think about it for two seconds. They elect a conservative Pope, send out the white smoke, and then five minutes later think "Oops, we made a boo-boo" and then they cancel the smoke?
I have a friend (who goes to our church) who saw the white smoke on television during the 1958 papal election. She then saw the black smoke.
-
Raoul--
I was going to respond to your post in an objective style, point-by-point, but I see that Thursday's already done a good job of that. So instead I'm going to speak subjectively.
As I've said before, I didn't embrace the Siri Thesis when it was first presented to me. In fact I argued strenuously against it-- for years-- on discussion boards like this one. What brought me around was a consideration of the fruits of V2, as it were.
How else do you explain John 23 ignoring an explicit request from Heaven to release the 3d Secret of Fatima in 1960? How does the pope place his private judgement above that of the BV? How in the world does that happen? [In saying this, please understand that underlying my question is a conclusion that what the Vatican released in 2000 could not possibly have been the whole thing. The Vatican coverup has been exposed by Fr. Nicholas Gruner of the worldwide Fatima Apostolate, by lay authors such as Antonio Socci & Christopher Ferrara, and to this Benedict 16 agreed during his 2010 visit to the Fatima Shrine.]
How else do you explain Paul 6's promulgation of the Novus Ordo?
...John-Paul 2's concelebration with heretics & pagans?
...Benedict 16's teaching that Protestants are not heretics? That in & of itself is an heretical position. Can a heretic serve as pope?
...so if every pope since Pius XII has been completely out of touch with Heaven, then how did that happen? Clearly it sprang from V2-- in which case how did V2 come about? All the evidence leads to the Conclave of 1958. Before then there were Modernist tendencies in the Church, but those tendencies were under control, they'd been condemned, & they were on the outside of mainstream Catholic thought. Beginning in 1958 they were in control.
These thoughts led me to a deeper consideration of what the Siri Thesis actually said, rather than what had been said about it by external commentators. And the closer I looked, the more sense it made.
Then I realized that something very similar to the Siri Thesis had been predicted in the Book of the Apocalypse, by St. Francis of Assisi, and at La Salette, Fatima, & Garabandal, among others. I researched Garabandal more thoroughly, & found that it had enjoyed the private approval of St. Pio of Petrelcina, who said that the BV had explicitly told him in a vision that the apparitions there were genuine.
I've said this before, but evidently I have to say it again. I am not a conventional Sirist, in that I don't maintain that the Siri Thesis is necessarily true-- only that it's plausible.
I confess to some resentment at your insinuation that I, who have seriously researched the Siri Thesis & consider it not certain, but possible, have been "influenced by cloak-and-dagger stories". That is emphatically not the case.
I hope you'll forgive me for pointing out that with your reference to the 3d Secret of Fatima having been "engineered BY the usurpers to generate more confusion", you reveal yourself as someone with only the most cursory understanding of the issues.
Leaving aside the Siri Thesis for a moment, Fatima has the official approval of the pre-V2 Church. We know, therefore, that the BV came down from Heaven to perform the greatest miracle of the past several hundred years, & to inform Sr. Lucia of a great secret that she explicitly said was to be revealed in 1960. Do you think that she did this for petty reasons, or to generate confusion?
No-- she did it to provide for your salvation, Raoul. And mine, & Thursday's.
When the Vatican concealed that secret, do you think they gave a ripped rat about your salvation? No-- they concealed it because the secret exposed them for a bunch of self-serving, un-Godly hypocrites.
"The whole story of the white smoke makes no sense."
...but it's true. It was written about in the newspapers of the time, discussed on the radio & TV, the Swiss Guard was called out to give the initial ceremonial salute to the new pontiff... Even Rosemary, in the post above this one, vouches for it. What more do you need? It happened. It's the best-docuмented event in this whole chain of events.
Where I suppose that I differ the most from you, Raoul, is that once I've satisfied myself that something is true, I don't summarily reject it based on my personal prejudices. What I do instead is try to integrate it into my overall perspective, shoving aside things that are less well-established.
"Where the Siri thesists really show their weakness is when it comes to the question of how a successor would have been elected. He dies and a crack team of traditional Cardinals...somehow elect a new Pope...?"
Some Sirists maintain that Siri created cardinals who elected a successor. I think that his demeanor towards the end of his life was one of resignation, & that the office of the papacy died with him. And I'll repeat-- upon careful study of End Times prophecy I think this is precisely in accord with what we've been told about the last days of the Church. If you really want to refute me, then read my "End Times prophecy" thread in the "Crisis in the Church" forum on this site & have at it. I welcome reasoned criticism.
Your presumption that all "Siri thesists" expound the same thing once again betrays your cursory understanding of the issues. We don't know for certain what happened, Raoul. By the very nature of things we cannot. That's why we express ourselves differently, based on what each of us finds most plausible.
...because here's the thing, Raoul. I'd really like to be proven wrong. I don't enjoy this, but I've been forced to it by careful research & by logic. So if you can prove me wrong, other than by making general statements of your private disbelief based on the shallowest understanding of the issues, then go for it.
In closing, let me say that in re-reading this message before posting it I find that in one or two places I can with some justice be accused of a lack of charity. I considered rewriting the post to eliminate those occasions, but upon reflection I've decided not to. Not because I wish to exhibit a lack of charity towards you, Raoul, but because those instances are fully warranted by the tone of your original message, & they are necessary in this response to make it clear why I reject your answer. So if you find my answer uncharitable, then let me say now that I apologise.
-- Graehame.
-
Yes, there was an abundance of white smoke as you can see in the video on youtube but the smoke did eventually turn black. Father Charles-Roux who was inside the Conclave reported that there was a fight (shoving match) at the stove.
-
Yes, there was an abundance of white smoke as you can see in the video on youtube but the smoke did eventually turn black. Father Charles-Roux who was inside the Conclave reported that there was a fight (shoving match) at the stove.
Will you please post the link here?
Thank you.
-
The first section covers the morning fumeta and around the the 3:30 mark it cuts to the evening smoke signal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQp00j4H3Kg
Here is the excerpt from the article with Father Charles-Roux's testimony.
The whole article can be found here.
http://www.realnews247.com/giuffre_on_oct_26_1958.htm
"One may wonder what was made of all this white smoke and how much, if at all, did these developments perplex and disturb the Italian faithful? For instance, a number of people have anecdotally told Mr. Giuffre, the author of this article, as well as others who are supporters of this investigation, that the "word on the street" after Roncalli emerged as John XXIII was that "they switched popes on us." In fact, a veteran Italian news reporter adds her considerable credibility to this popular perception.
In her still unpublished memoirs, Vatican news correspondent, and long time reporter for the Associated Press wire service, Gabriella Montemayor (1912-2005), whose career spanned 50 years, summarized the rumors that circulated among informed journalists in October 1958:
“Siri was alleged to have been elected at the conclave of 1958, from which, instead, came out Roncalli. The three well-known smoke signals, white, black, and then, finally, white, had aroused not a little perplexity and the same comment throughout the whole of the Italian peninsula: Who had been elected at the first white smoke?
"Everyone in Genoa insisted, even from the first day: ‘It most certainly was Siri.’ Could he have abdicated? Had he been forced out? Was it politics or the Holy Ghost? The mystery remains yet today. However, the [new] Vatican which burst unexpectedly before our eyes was a totally different Vatican from that of Pius XII, who had condemned Communism, excommunicating whoever had collaborated in any way with the atheists. The excommunication was surely still legitimate when the new pontificate opened its arms to the Soviets, even as Roncalli was hailed, in a shameless manner, as the “good Pope.” (Gabriella Montemayor, I’ll Tell My Cat, 1993, unpublished manuscript, Rome, chapter 4: “Conclave,” page 28.)
* * * * * * *
A second testimony in this regard was obtained by Mr. Gary Giuffré during an interview conducted in London, England in July,1993 with Father Jean-Marie Charles-Roux, a former Vatican official and intelligence officer. The aged priest 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.
* * * * * * *
It might be of interest that Fr. Charles-Roux first came to the attention of those spearheading this investigation when Mrs. Deidre Manifold, author of Fatima and the Great Conspiracy and other books, mentioned to this webmaster that a certain priest would be able to relate what had happened within the 1958 conclave. Mrs. Manifold asserted that he was Fr. Charles-Roux, and that he was actually inside the conclave. (This conversation took place in the early 1990s during the Saturday evening dinner at a weekend conference organized by Holy Family Monastery in Berlin, New Jersey; Deidre. Manifold was an invited speaker, and had traveled all the way from Ireland for the occasion.) However, while granting interviews about this subject on several occasions, Fr. Charles-Roux has never confirmed to date that he was, indeed, inside that conclave."
-
How else do you explain John 23 ignoring an explicit request from Heaven to release the 3d Secret of Fatima in 1960? How does the pope place his private judgement above that of the BV? How in the world does that happen?
How else do you explain Paul 6's promulgation of the Novus Ordo?
...John-Paul 2's concelebration with heretics & pagans?
...Benedict 16's teaching that Protestants are not heretics? That in & of itself is an heretical position. Can a heretic serve as pope?
These are arguments for sedevacantism. I am not sure how these could be used as arguments for the Siri thesis... maybe you could elaborate?
It should also be noted that Raoul is a sede, in case you did not know.
-
No, according to sedevacantist theory Roncalli was elected by the Conclave, but there is no way that the Conclave guided by the Holy Ghost would choose a heretical Mason as pope. I have some notes to support this that I'll look up later. Therefore we must look somewhere else for the answer.
The most plausible explanation in light of this is that the the papal office was transferred two days before Roncalli appeared on the balcony at St. Peter's square and was indicated by the very clear emission of white smoke from atop the Sistine Chapel.
This is in some way what happened with Anecletus II and Innoceent II. Innocent was elected first and a few hours later another group of Cardinals elected Anacletus, Anacletus proceeded to destroy the Church allegedly even melting down gold chalices because he was free from the effect of the Holy Ghost.
-
A group of cardinals can elect an antipope. It has happened on various occasions.
-
A group of cardinals can elect an antipope. It has happened on various occasions.
Yes many anti-popes were elected by Cardinals, it was Cardinals who elected Anacletus II after Innocent II was elected. If the Cardinals elect do elect an anti-pope then we have to assume that they were not guided by the Holy Ghost and there was something shady happening.
Since I can't find my arguments though I'll back off the statement until I can provide some support.
This statement from Cardinal Tisserant published in an Italian periodical should be noted.
"The election of Cardinal Roncalli was illegitimate because it was willed and planned for by forces alien to the Holy Spirit."
-
Thursday-- You should know that the research of Gary Giuffre has been denounced in very strong terms by Hutton Gibson. I haven't investigated this so I have no idea who's right, but because of it I've been cautious in rerferencing anything to Gary Giuffre.
...and what is your source for the Tisserant quote? I knew that he'd alluded vaguely to "irregularities", but I had no idea that he'd been so specific as to credit Roncalli's election "to forces alien to the Holy Spirit". I need your source!
SpirituSanctus-- "These are arguments for sedevacantism. I am not sure how these could be used as arguments for the Siri thesis... maybe you could elaborate?"
If among John 23, Paul 6, & John-Paul 2 not one of them was a valid pope (as shown by their actions), then to what can we attribute this? If on the other hand Siri was canonically elected & then forced to resign by threats, then that would be uncanonical. It would obstruct the election of any other candidate during his lifetime. By the time of the 2005 Conclave, when Benedict was elected, every cardinal who'd participated in the 1958 Conclave was dead, & not one of their replacements had a valid appointment-- which would have had to have come from Siri.
I don't insist on this. I merely suggest it as one plausible interpretation of the facts.
As for Raoul being a sede-- what am I to say? He says that anyone who takes the Siri Thesis seriously must be obsessed with cloak-&-dagger theatricals. He speaks condescendingly of the 3d Secret of Fatima. He says that the story of the white smoke has a "tinge of mockery that he's noticed always surround demonic lies"-- although it's the single best-docuмented aspect of the Siri Thesis, & it's the one thing that certainly happened. And then Raoul seriously proposes that J-P 1 was killed, only to be resurrected as J-P 2! It isn't whether or not he's a sede that I take issue with. It's his tone, his disrespect, and his condescension.
-
The source is the French book L'Eglise Eclipsee written by the Louis Hubert Remy who visited Cardinal Siri in 1985 and asked him if he was elected Pope. They used to have the book online but I wasn't able to find it, I did find some excerpts however, the quote is at the end. They give the periodical where it originally appeared and I tried to track it down to no avail. This is kinda long but goes to show how long Roncalli's election had been planned for a long time.
page 82
5. A Planned Event: John XXIII, the man who convened the Council
A programmed election
The Masonic bulletin, Les échos du Surnaturel, December 1961-January 1962, published evidence by a well published author: “Concerning the Council, on August 14, 1954, I wrote to Cardinal Roncalli (longtime Nuncio in Paris with whom I have conferred) to announce to him his future election (to the Papacy) and to ask him to meet with me during his vacation in his native country for the purpose of studying his first project----the Council.
Specifically, I wrote: Would that you would reflect on everything about that, because there will be no time to waiver; once you ascend the Pontifical throne, the plan shall be immediately carried out and so surprise all of the politicos. In this same vein, from 1954, the Freemasons had told Msgr. Roncalli to learn some languages because he would be the next pope elected by then and thus, it was necessary that he be prepared for the papacy.” (B.O.C., p.9, No. 52,Mai 1980)
That same year, 1954, in August, Jean-Gaston Bardet “a noted Freemason of the esoteric Christian persuasion, wrote to Patriarch Roncalli who was then on holiday in his native village of Sotto il Monte:
Not only he did tell (Bardet) that he would be Pope, but (he) also knew the name he would choose when he would be elected. (Hebblethwaite, John XXIII, Pope of the Council, See American publisher).
Bardet came to Venice where he met Roncalli, repeating his predictions to him, and telling him, according to Capovilla (Secretary of John XXIII) that his Pontificate would be marked by “doctrinal innovations and some disciplinary reforms.” (Sodalitium, no. 33, “Le Pape du Concile”, 1954-1958, 10th part, p. 37)
Why was 1954 the year in which Masonry began its plan?
At the end of 1953, Pius XII was very tired and his spiritual affairs were in the hands of Father Bea,[2] his confessor, a very knowledgeable man, but an unbridled ecuмenist. As is attested to in the following, it can be clearly said that Pius XII was delivered body and soul from evildoers; this point was made by Carlo Pacelli, his nephew, who wondered if his uncle had been the victim of an attempt to poison him. (Antonio Spinosa: Pie XII, l’ultimo Papa, [“Pius XII, the Last Pope”] Mondadori, Milan, 1992, p. 342.)
But the Lord miraculously protected Pius XII’s body and soul. This respite permitted him to carry out two extremely important acts: the canonization of Pius X, and the distancing of Montini. From January 26 to February 16, 1954, Pius XII was not able to be fed by natural means. In the Fall, he suffered a relapse and his condition became quite desperate.
On December 2, Pius XII told Msgr. Tardini, “I tell you, the others can think that its because of hallucinations caused by illness. Yesterday morning, I clearly heard a voice (very clearly so) who said, ‘A vision is going to appear to you now.’ In fact nothing appeared. This morning, when I attended Mass, for an instant I saw the Lord. It was only for an instant, but I did see…” (Chélini: L’Eglise sous Pie XII, [“The Church Under Pius XII”] Editions Fayard, 1989, Vol. II, pp. 513, 514)
Pius XII thought that the Lord had come to take him, in answer to his prayer: “In hora mortis meae, voca me” (“At the hour of my death, call m.”) (Prayer: Anima Christi, found at the beginning of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius). Jesus cured him, giving the Church four more years of respite. (Sodalitium, no. 33: “Le Pape du Concile” Part 10, 1954-1958, p.37.)
Pius XII then wrote his letter of August 13, 1954, in which he said:
In the world today, full of snares and perils, there are many who boldly struggle to spread error among the faithful. An audacious propaganda campaign, either openly or surreptitiously, insinuates itself among the Catholics, with the goal of estranging their fidelity which is due to Christ and the true Church, and at the same time, to cut out the faith from their souls. Unfortunately, for as many as there are who courageously defend their beliefs, there are many who abandon them
Roncalli was quite detached regarding the Pope’s illness, and had prophesied his death four years in advance. ….He wrote that the Pope
…often seems at death’s door, and pulls back and then relapses. I have little confidence that the Holy Father will be successfully cured, despite all the doctors, medicine and care. His life is a miracle, but miracles, as you know, only last a little while. (Hebblethwaite, op. cit. p. 281)
Msgr. Roncalli would thus await his Conclave at the end of 1958.[3]
Let us pause a few moments here to treat a key person: Dom Lambert Beauduin. He was a Belgian monk, who on the eve of the First World War, at a time when the humanist movement within the Catholic Church was more and more rearing its head, actively worked to advance the Masonic plan for a “future” liturgical reform through the “creation” of a “new mass”, a synthesis of modernist heresy. He was also one of the “prophets” of the ecuмenism that triumphed at the Council.
The wild initiatives of Dom Lambert Beauduin resulted in offending Pius XI, who, in 1928, reacted by condemning his theses in the encyclical, Mortalium Animo. Afterward, Beauduin worked in secret, from the shadows. In 1924, he struck up a friendship with Msgr. Roncalli.
How did this friendship come about? One cannot ignore that Roncalli was given back his teaching Chair at the Atheneum of the Lateran through his “modernist” promoters.
The two men were fast friends, and at the news of Pius XII’s death, the following was written:
…the aged Dom Lambert Beauduin, 85 years old, told [this writer]: “If they elect Roncalli, everything will be salvaged: he will be able to convene a Council and to install Ecuмenism.” He fell silent again, and then the old malice resurfaced, when he frankly said: “I am sure we will have our chance: the Cardinals for the most part, don’t know what they are doing. They are capable of voting for him.” (Louis Bouyer, “Dom Lambert Beauduin, un homme d’église, [“Dom Lambert Beauduin, Man of the Church], 1964, pp. 180, 181)
In 1977, Franco Bellegrandi, ex-Chamberlain of the Cape and the Sword of His Holiness and contributor to L’Osservatore Romano, wrote a book titled, NikitaRoncalli, which was published in 1994, accompanied by quite a commotion in the national press at its release because, among the persons present was Cardinal Silvio Oddi.
In this book, he told what he had seen and heard at the Vatican. It was in September 1958, just before the Conclave, the author was privy to some confidential information:
I was in a car with a person whom I knew to be a highly placed Mason who was in contact with the Vatican. He said to me: “The next Pope will not be Siri, as the gossip has it in certain Roman circles, because he is too authoritarian a cardinal. A conciliating Pope will be elected. He has already been chosen, and is the Patriarch of Venice, Roncalli,” To this I replied: “Are there Masons in the Conclave?” “Certainly,” he said. “The Church is in our hands.” After a brief silence, my interlocutor said, “No one can say where the leader can be found. The leader is hidden.”
The following day, Count Stella (of a well known Italian family---ED) wrote in an official docuмent, which today is in a notary’s safety deposit box, the first and last name of this person as well as his stupefying declaration, compete with the month, year, day, and time of day.” (Nichitaroncalli [NikitaRoncalli], Ediziones Eiles, Rome, p. 62)
On the eve of the Conclave which elected Msgr. Roncalli, Roncalli didn’t cross his fingers, as he was already almost certain of his victory. On Friday, October 24, on the eve of the closing of the Conclave, he summoned none other than Giulio Andreotti, the Italian politico who was identified by the widow Calvi as the true head of P2 Lodge, to tell him in diplomatic language, of his forthcoming election. (Ibid, p.395) (Professor Carlo Alberto Agnoli, op. cit.)
When Roncalli spoke with Andreotti, the Patriarch clearly told him that he knew from the first morning of the Conclave, a few hours before the Cardinal went from the Domus Mariae to the Vatican, that he would be the new Pope. Said Andreotti: “That evening, Msgr. Capovilla telephoned me that the Patriarch wanted to see me.”
The Italian politico then told of his longtime relations with Roncallli and Roncalli’s friendship with the modernist, Buonaiuti. Then he returned to his conversation with the Patriarch, who wanted to talk about the Conclave: “It is true that we always say: not I, not I. But the arrows of the Holy Spirit must fall on someone…I received a message of congratulations from General DeGaulle, but that doesn’t mean that in fact the French Cardinals will vote this way. I know that they would like to elect Montini and this would certainly be excellent: but it isn’t possible to go outside the tradition which is that the choice be made among the Cardinals…” Here is Andreotti’s commentary: “I listened stupefied and embarrassed. I thus knew that Roncalli was sure of being elected by the Conclave.” (Giulio Andreotti, A ogni morte di Papa. I papi che ho conosciuto, Biblioteca-universale Rizzoli, 1982, pp. 65-66) (Sodalitium, no. 33, “Le Pape du Concile, [“The Pope of the Council”, 1954-1958, p. 39.)
Before his talk with Andreotti, Msgr. Roncalli had written two letters, one to the Bishop of Bergamo, Msgr. Piazzi, dated October 23, and the other to the Bishop of Faenza, Giuseppe Battaglia, dated the 24th of the same month.
In the first he announced the “new Pentecost” which would come “with the renewal of the head.” It added, “It is of little importance that the new pope be or not be originally from Bergamo (as was he---Ed). You follow me, Your Excellency.” (P. Hebblethwaite, op. cit. p. 308)
As to the letter to the Bishop of Faenza, its specific object was to expressly forbid his nephew, Don Battista Roncalli, incardinated in that diocese, to come to Rome at this time! This would give the disagreeable impression of nepotism! But after the election, “When you learn that I succuмbed to the arrows of the Holy Spirit, imposed by the consensus of all those meeting here…’ the nephew could come to Rome…Congratulations Uncle. For the moment, Roncalli recommended: “Naturally, not a word of any of this to anyone.” (P. Hebbletheaite, op. cit. p. 308)
This plan was also revealed in a letter by Cardinal Tisserant, March 12, 1970, in which he made a pointed allusion to the “planned” election of John XXIII:
The election of the current Sovereign Pontiff was done quickly. It is the election of Jean XXIII, that was discussed at numerous meetings. I do not know of any information on the process was able to be given by anyone after the conclave. Secrecy was imposed even more strictly than ever. It is completely ridiculous to say that any cardinal would have been elected. You understand that I can say no more. My best regards….(Photocopy of the letter published Franco Bellegrandi’s book, op. cit. p. 30)
In another letter, Cardinal Tisserant told a priest teaching canon law that the election of John XXIII was illegitimate because it was willed and planed for by forces alien to the Holy Spirit. (“Vita” 18 September, 1977, p.4: “Le profezie sui papi nell’elenco di San Malachia”)-[“Prophecies on the popes by Saint Malachy”] These letters confirm that the election of John XXIII really was “programmed.”
-
Those who go for the Siri Thesis are almost always influenced by cloak-and-dagger stories. While there is certainly much that is cloak-and-dagger going on in the Vatican, the Church didn't get infiltrated without a conspiracy, I actually believe these particular stories are engineered BY the usurpers to generate more confusion, like with their "third secret of Fatima."
The whole story of the white smoke makes no sense. It has a diabolical touch to it, that tinge of mockery that I've noticed always surrounds demonic lies. Just think about it for two seconds. They elect a conservative Pope, send out the white smoke, and then five minutes later think "Oops, we made a boo-boo" and then they cancel the smoke?
The Church has been overrun by these Machiavellian plotters; do you think they come this far after decades if not centuries, only to do something as boneheaded as to elect a true Pope in front of the world and then clumsily try to stop the smoke? Who do you think these people are, the Keystone Kops? On the one hand, you ascribe demonic ingenuity to them, and then on the other, they act like bumbling clowns?
Then there the other problems: They say Cardinal Siri was threatened and so he had to play along with them. Do you know why Cardinals wear red? To remind them they owe it to shed their blood for Christ if necessary. So Cardinal Siri almost certainly lost the papacy if he ever had it.
Where the Siri thesists really show their weakness is when it comes to the question of how a successor would have been elected. He dies and a crack team of traditional Cardinals -- how many do you suppose still existed by that point? -- despite being under constant surveillance and with their lives threatened, somehow elect a new Pope, who then also goes into hiding?
But to someone who believes in theory, they don't want to hear it, to them it's exciting, it's like being an insider to dark doings, they probably feel enlightened and are tickled by being privy to devious manipulations. It's like reading a spy novel. But the truth is that they don't know a thing about what really happened. Those who want the real truth will stick to what can be known with the information we have been given, not to speculations about murders in the Vatican and cardinals fighting over smoke signals, all this Malachi Martin-style Godfather III-type hogwash.
You missed it and than YOU SAID IT? You underestimate how evil and demonic these followers and the devil himself are.
Cardinal Tisserant himself said: That the election of John XXIII was illegetimate and planned by forces alien to the Holy Ghost. And he was one of the men of who he spoke. Truly Demonic.
Do you know why they did what they did? Apparently not. These men and the Devil know Catholic Theology, they know that a True Pope would be protected by the third person of the Bleesed Trinity, the Holy Ghost, The Paraclete from implementing anti-Catholic reforms on the Church. Because they know God is real and his promises are real. That's how evil they are. They know the church is Divine and yet still destroy it because they're of their father and his fallen angels.
That's why they can bury the Third Secret which specifically condemns them and just go on.
What you don't get is they had to validly elect a True Pope and set him aside in order to than replace hin with an anti-pope to carry out their reforms. That's what Malichi meant when he said thew whole thing was planned. They let him accept, take a name, started the white smoke, which meant the election was official and Siri was the Valid Pope. Than they shoved the men at the stove aside, put up black smoke while making threats to siri and the traditional Catholic Cardinals, knowing full well that resignation from the Papacy by force of threats makes the resignmation invalid. Therefore they knew Siri would still be the true Pope and they could elect a fellow mason whom God would despise and would not protect with the promises to Peter.
Remeber the "Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita" Lodge. Their plan for over a hundred years was to place one of their own on the chair of Peter. Remember Malichi said it was all planned. That's why they elected him again in the 1963 conclave and overturned the election again, and again in '78. These infiltraitors ARE DIOBOLLICALLY INGENIOUS. Because their lead by the intelligence of the fallen one himself who was given the power to accomplish this by the permissive will og God because we ignored his mother at Fatima.
-
There is always a true claimant( Gregory XVII) to the Chair of St Peter when an anti-pope is present.
-
I also think it is worth questioning: Why did Roncalli choose the name of John XXIII, knowing that it was the name and number of a previous antipope?
-
The whole story of the white smoke makes no sense. It has a diabolical touch to it, that tinge of mockery that I've noticed always surrounds demonic lies. Just think about it for two seconds. They elect a conservative Pope, send out the white smoke, and then five minutes later think "Oops, we made a boo-boo" and then they cancel the smoke?
Yes that is exactly what the plan was, elect a true pope, shove him aside and then elect an anti-pope who would be free from the effects of the Holy Ghost.
Do you know why they did what they did? Apparently not. These men and the Devil know Catholic Theology, they know that a True Pope would be protected by the third person of the Bleesed Trinity, the Holy Ghost, The Paraclete from implementing anti-Catholic reforms on the Church.
What's really disturbing about this 'theory/ thesis' is that no one has a way of proving anything, yet no one admits this. Secondly, you remove the humanity from a pope. Even with the papacy, the free will of a man who holds this office in the Church remains; so disregarding the sedevecantist question and whether he then loses office, you ignore the fact that someone can reject graces and protection given to them because of our vary nature, and the nature of God.
Because they know God is real and his promises are real. That's how evil they are. They know the church is Divine and yet still destroy it because they're of their father and his fallen angels.
That's why they can bury the Third Secret which specifically condemns them and just go on.
What you don't get is they had to validly elect a True Pope and set him aside in order to than replace hin with an anti-pope to carry out their reforms. That's what Malichi meant when he said thew whole thing was planned. They let him accept, take a name, started the white smoke, which meant the election was official and Siri was the Valid Pope. Than they shoved the men at the stove aside, put up black smoke while making threats to siri and the traditional Catholic Cardinals, knowing full well that resignation from the Papacy by force of threats makes the resignmation invalid. Therefore they knew Siri would still be the true Pope and they could elect a fellow mason whom God would despise and would not protect with the promises to Peter.
Again, this entire summation begs the question. A pope still retains his free will and ability to sin against Faith as with any other type of sin; we're not speaking as to whether he loses office or not now, but his basic humanity- which gives us the ability, but not the right, to sin against God in this way.