Most of us who think Card Siri was elected, think that he appointed a group of Cardinals b4 he died and that they elected Card Pintonello upon the death of Greg XVII. I do not believe Pintonello is still alive so what the present situation is can only be a matter of speculation( at least for myself). It is to bad that todayscatholicworld does not have a forum or comments area.

Mrs Martinez also makes the absurd claim that Card Rampolla was a pal of Alistar(sp) Crowley in the OTO.

I do not believe we have a Pope.  I don't say we don't, but if we do, I am not aware of him.  Also, I do not know how we are to receive another, but this is irrelevant.  What matters is holding the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate, but this cannot be done by someone who adheres to heretical or schismatic sects.

Siri went along with the bogus V2 cult so he is out, and anyone following him is schismatic, such as David Hobson and TCW.  They are wrong about BOD as well, and Patrick Walsh's letter to MHFM did not cite dogma at all.

Also he falsely accuses MHFM of interpreting Scripture contrary to the Church when they talk about the abomination of desolation and such.  Interpreting contrary to the Church would be a case, for example like interpreting John 3:5 contrary to how the Church has interpreted it for us already in infallible decrees.  No solemn definition was given to the book of Apocalypse.

MHFM changed my life too, but I have come to understand that they are heretical on a few points, most notably this one:  Basel.

They also subtly deny the Salvation dogma, allowing post age-of-reason Protestant children who adhere to their heretical sects to be somehow Catholic, but they have to deny a bunch of Papal teachings to do this.

I do not believe we have a Pope.  I don't say we don't, but if we do, I am not aware of him.  Also, I do not know how we are to receive another, but this is irrelevant.  What matters is holding the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate, but this cannot be done by someone who adheres to heretical or schismatic sects.

Siri went along with the bogus V2 cult so he is out, and anyone following him is schismatic, such as David Hobson and TCW. They are wrong about BOD as well, and Patrick Walsh's letter to MHFM did not cite dogma at all.

Also he falsely accuses MHFM of interpreting Scripture contrary to the Church when they talk about the abomination of desolation and such.  Interpreting contrary to the Church would be a case, for example like interpreting John 3:5 contrary to how the Church has interpreted it for us already in infallible decrees.  No solemn definition was given to the book of Apocalypse.

MHFM changed my life too, but I have come to understand that they are heretical on a few points, most notably this one:  Basel.

They also subtly deny the Salvation dogma, allowing post age-of-reason Protestant children who adhere to their heretical sects to be somehow Catholic, but they have to deny a bunch of Papal teachings to do this.

Hold one second. You said this.

I beg to interject here. First of all, Gregory XVII was already pope, and was not subject to anything written by an antipope. He was also ill, and recalled it in an interview that he was ill during the council.

Also, he was under great duress as it were, with threats to his life and probably his family.

When one becomes a pope, and is under duress, and perhaps even drugged, we have to be very cautious of how we judge. There's a lot of disinformation going around, and I pray that I've found correctly. In my conscience I have.

The declassified Department of State docuмents say he was elected and took the name Gregory XVII. If this is true, then there are very few ways he can get out of being the pope. YOU CANNOT resign under duress. If he was the choice of the Holy Ghost (which I sincerely believe he was) then we must be extremely cautious how we speak about him.

To make a blanket statement and say "Anyone who is following Gregory XVII's line of succession is schismatic," is a load of bullocks!

This is an extremely confusing time, and I could say the same thing about people that are "sede vacant" because infallably the church has taught that there will be a PERPETUAL LINE OF SUCCESSION, so there can't be a 60 year period of sede vacant, which is why I'm NOT sede vacant, and because of the evidence that Gregory XVII was really elected, and because of the anathematized statement made in regard to succession.

So either you believe that "Fat John XXIII" and his pretender successors are "popes" or you believe that Gregory XVII, who was elected on at least four or five ballots over a 30 year period, was the pope, and that he had successors. There's no "there's no pope." That would go against that council.


The Vatican Council 1869-1870 A.D.
Ex Cathedra On The Permanence of the Primacy of Blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiff:

"Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."

The Vatican Council, Fourth Session, First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, 2,5
On The Permanence of the Primacy of Blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiff -July 18th, 1870 A.D.

So, in conscience, I can't be sede vacant, but I can follow someone who's ballot was worthy of 5 minutes of white smoke coming from the Sistine Chapel.

Am I a "schismatic" for that? I dare you to say I am.

:) Matthew.

I'm not sede vacant. That's what I'm saying.

By his own words he shows himself a heretic. The writings of past True Holy Pontiffs condems him as a heretic.

ReadPope Expresses "Deep Respect" for Muslims


And Proposes a Positive and Self-critical Dialogue



VATICAN CITY, SEPT. 20, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI expressed his respect for Muslims and clarified that a recent address in Germany sought to propose a positive and self-critical dialogue among religions and between reason and Christians' faith.

The Pope again clarified the contents of his Sept. 12 address at the University of Regensburg -- which sparked violent reactions in some Muslim circles -- when he spoke today to 40,000 people gathered for the general audience.

Speaking in St. Peter's Square, the Holy Father first clarified the context of that address: "a conference before a large auditorium of professors and students at the University of Regensburg, in which for many years I was professor."

"I had chosen as topic the question of the relationship between faith and reason," explained Benedict XVI who, deeply saddened, on Sunday had clarified his references to Islam.

"To introduce the auditorium to the dramatic and timely character of the argument," he said today, "I quoted some words of a Christian-Islamic dialogue of the 14th century, in which the Christian interlocutor, the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, in an incomprehensively brusque way for us, presented to the Islamic interlocutor the problem of the relationship between religion and violence."

"Unfortunately, this quotation has given room to a misunderstanding," the Pope said. "For the careful reader of my text, it is clear that I did not wish at any time to make my own the negative words uttered by the medieval emperor in this dialogue and that its controversial content does not express my personal conviction."

The Holy Father told the general audience that his intention "was very different."

United to reason

"Based on what Manuel II affirms afterward in a very positive way, with very beautiful words, about rationality in the transmission of the faith, I wished to explain that religion is not united to violence, but to reason," the Pontiff explained.

"I wished to invite the Christian faith to dialogue with the modern world and to dialogue with all cultures and religions," he said.

In fact, Benedict XVI reminded his audience that in other of his addresses in Germany -- for example, in the homily he delivered at a large outdoor Mass in Munich -- he emphasized "the importance of respecting what others consider sacred."

In this way, the Holy Father sought to make clear his "deep respect for the great religions, in particular for Muslims -- who 'adore the one God' and with whom we are engaged in "preserving and promoting together for all mankind social justice, moral values, peace and freedom."

Benedict XVI concluded hoping that "After the reactions of the first moment, my words at the University of Regensburg will represent an impulse and encouragement to a positive dialogue, including self-critical, both among religions, as well as between modern reason and Christians' faith."




© Innovative Media, Inc.

Reprinting ZENIT's articles requires written permission from the editor.


 the following, and this is just day one of his trip. Heresy.

Double minded double speak does not come from the Holy Spirit.


And about Siri. One only has to read about Cardinal Mindzenty (sp) to realize that they used drugs to alter his mind.

And, I do not call is sede-vacante I call it simply Catholic. And, at the moment the Chair of Peter is being held by a heretic, and so therefore he is not a true Pontiff.
And, I reckon it gets harder and harder to  defend the position of recognizing as the Pope and then disobeying him.
For to follow the line of the SSPX is to call Bendict a true Pope, then to pick and choose that which you will follow.
If you recognize him or John Paul II as pope and do not follow their teachings (For example, +Lefebvre was given permission to ordain one (1) priest only. When he went ahead and ordained four (4), then he was openly disobeying the man he recognized as Pontiff.)

Does CMRI accept that Card Siri was elected in 1958? and what does TCW mean by describing CMRI as holding a false doctrine of 'Popeless Ecuмenism'?