Author Topic: Response to Father Ricossas defense of Rampolla (Read 6793 times)

Thursday · « **Reply #60 on:** November 04, 2011, 05:05:21 PM »

I didn't give you that thumbs down BTW. The New york time times was just saying what this Father Daniel was claiming in his book.

A. How do you arrive at the conclusion that Pius X would have been an anti-pope if he didn't know what Rampolla was a mason until after his death?

B. What would have been appropriate action for Pius to take if after seeing the evidence, allegedly in Rampolla's strong box after his death?

rowsofvoices9 · « **Reply #61 on:** November 04, 2011, 08:06:40 PM »

Quote from: Thursday

Recall again that the affiliation of the felon was top secret because it was the highest levels Luciferian Masonry of the OTO and not the mere masonry where the brothers are unaware of these intricacies that would make many flee if they had knowledge. St. Pius X knew the membership of the OTO after the death of felon and not at the Conclave of 1903 or shortly after the Conclave! Should we write that again in bold?!

This whole argument appears not to have any merit and I agree with Roscoe on this. Do you really think St. Pius X would have been kept completely in the dark as to why Card. Rampolla's elevation to the Chair of Peter was vetoed? Isn't it reasonable to assume that rumors that Rampolla was a freemason would have been rife within the upper echelons of the Church? Certainly someone would have brought this to St. Pius X's attention before he appointed Card. Rampolla to such an important position in the Curia.

I am going to consider this just another wild conspiracy right along with the two Sr. Lucia's and Paul VI's.

Thursday · « **Reply #62 on:** November 04, 2011, 10:11:32 PM »

So why did the Polish Cardinal veto Rampolla at the conclave? Again, Pius XII promoted Montini and Roncalli. He made Roncalli cardinal and archbishop of venice which basically put him in line for the papacy.

Rampolla went from being secretary of state to having "important roles in the Curia" how do you know this wasn't a so-called banishment.

roscoe · « **Reply #63 on:** November 07, 2011, 12:51:04 AM »

Quote from: rowsofvoices9

Quote from: Thursday

Recall again that the affiliation of the felon was top secret because it was the highest levels Luciferian Masonry of the OTO and not the mere masonry where the brothers are unaware of these intricacies that would make many flee if they had knowledge. St. Pius X knew the membership of the OTO after the death of felon and not at the Conclave of 1903 or shortly after the Conclave! Should we write that again in bold?!

This whole argument appears not to have any merit and I agree with Roscoe on this. Do you really think St. Pius X would have been kept completely in the dark as to why Card. Rampolla's elevation to the Chair of Peter was vetoed? Isn't it reasonable to assume that rumors that Rampolla was a freemason would have been rife within the upper echelons of the Church? Certainly someone would have brought this to St. Pius X's attention before he appointed Card. Rampolla to such an important position in the Curia.

I am going to consider this just another wild conspiracy right along with the two Sr. Lucia's and Paul VI's.

Rampolla is made Card under Pope Leo in 1887. It is being alleged then that this Pope ( as well as Pius X) is either in on the plot or is to dumb to figure out reality. :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :confused1: :ready-to-eat:

roscoe · « **Reply #64 on:** November 07, 2011, 11:54:19 AM »

Quote from: Thursday

Rampolla went from being secretary of state to having "important roles in the Curia" how do you know this wasn't a so-called banishment.

Because he was not physically removed from Rome as was Della Chiesa, Roncalli and Montini.