Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Thursday on April 12, 2011, 07:35:27 PM
-
At the center of the film is the election of Cardinal Siri in 1958.
I got hold of video of the white smoke from to days before the election of John XXIII which is in part 4. I try to cover the rest nof the problems in light of the fact that there was a coup d'etat in 1958. Enjoy!
Part 1 Historical Precedents http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQBP9HmZDGk
Part 2 October 1958 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qikkoocqgUE
Part 3 The Chosen Candidate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giVuud52ijY
Part 4 The 1958 Conclave http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQp00j4H3Kg
Part 5 Who was John XXIII http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOgD0Yyoqts
Part 6 The 1963 Conclave http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCBNwhnHius
Part 7 Who was Paul VI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeEkSJukLaw
Part 8 The Destruiction of the Mass http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdIDIOwjGN4
Part 9 Year of Two Conclaves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvUWfaXG9lk
Part 10 Cardinal Siri Confronted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGk14Fau41U
Part 11 Conclusion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8wdrmFxSBQ
Part 12 The UndergroundChurch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTPZZLvFANo
-
Thursday!
I just want to tell you thank you so much for these utubes! They are awsome! I do believe Siri was pope.
These videos are profound testimony for SEDEVACANTISM, the belief that the chair of Peter is empty!
May God Bless you!
Do you have a CD made available? :applause: :applause:
-
Thanks! And yes I do.
http://www.lulu.com/product/dvd/papal-imposters-the-story-of-the-suppressed-pontificate-of-cardinal-giuseppe-siri/15246377?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_shelf/center/1
-
Question: why the red text (in part 2) that isn't narrated? It's difficult to read and therefore moves from the screen too quickly, imo.
Back to the videos...
-
Yes, I struggled with that section. I thought a blank screen with writing was too dull. In the end I just had to stop deliberating and finish the thing. Believe me, it wasn't that easy to put together.
-
Oh wow, looking good! EVERYONE QUICK WATCH THEM!!
-
LOL, part 8 Martin Luther voice.
-
Unfortunately, the first two segments of the film are probably the least interesting even though they are necessary to fully make my case.
Part IV was the most costly, so if you watch any thing please watch Part 4 The 1958 Conclave http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQp00j4H3Kg
The most popular section after that so far is the one on Paul VI. The film is not exactly something that's easy to watch from beginning to end, each segment deals with a seperate subject so I suggest looking over the titles in the original post and picking away at whatever looks interesting.
-
I haven't watched them all yet, but as you suggested took the time now to view #4. I said this before on this forum, I remember that day well when the so-called white then black smoke was seen. Heard it on the radio, they said, the white smoke, we have a pope, then everything was changed to black smoke and the people everywhere were confused.
I also heard many times that there is evidence that John XXIII was a freemason, I think the evidence was in Turkey, but I could be wrong on that, it has been awhile since I read that in a Catholic magazine, titled "The Seraph", not sure this publication is in print any longer.
On this matter I am betwixt and between, since what does it matter much now, all this damage has been done, and I wonder too what does God think of Cardinal Siri about his lack of courage. Yet maybe nothing would have been gained if he did accept his valid election. Since he denied it, however, should we really consider him a pope after all?
Will watch all of the YouTubes and I do want to thank you for doing this research, taking the time to undertake this endeavor, it will, I feel wake up many people.
-
Since he denied it, however, should we really consider him a pope after all?
This was my question as well -- I was just waiting until I finished the videos to see if you addressed this.
-
Thursday- did you use a text to voice for the narrator? If so, do you mind me asking which one you used?
-
Not sure what you mean, I wrote a script, sent it to a guy on the east coast and he did the narration.
-
Since he denied it, however, should we really consider him a pope after all?
This was my question as well -- I was just waiting until I finished the videos to see if you addressed this.
I'm also wondering about this. So far I've only watched parts 3 and 4, but it doesn't seem that the narrator was able to prove that Cardinal Siri was pope (as he says, Siri refused it several times), or that Cardinal Roncalli was not validly elected. He tries to show that Roncalli was the Masonic 'candidate,' but I didn't find he did an entirely convincing job of that, either. At the most, the video shows that Roncalli was not the ideal candidate for the papacy (surprise, surprise).
Guess I'll have to watch the whole thing and see if my opinion changes.
-
Since he denied it, however, should we really consider him a pope after all?
This was my question as well -- I was just waiting until I finished the videos to see if you addressed this.
I'm also wondering about this. So far I've only watched parts 3 and 4, but it doesn't seem that the narrator was able to prove that Cardinal Siri was pope (as he says, Siri refused it several times), or that Cardinal Roncalli was not validly elected. He tries to show that Roncalli was the Masonic 'candidate,' but I didn't find he did an entirely convincing job of that, either. At the most, the video shows that Roncalli was not the ideal candidate for the papacy (surprise, surprise).
Guess I'll have to watch the whole thing and see if my opinion changes.
Look at it this way, we had a pope and a church until October 9th, 1958. From October 28th onwards it was all downhill. Now, did anything significant happen between these two dates? Yes, a five minute unambiguous signal of white smoke. This signal is never released unless the pope has accepted the office and chosen his name.
Also, resignation is invalid by law if it was made out of grave fear, unjustly inflicted, fraud, substantial error, or simony" (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 185).
So, is it fair to state that someone was elected on the night of October 26th, 1958 and that if that person was put under duress to resign the resignation is null and void?
-
I also heard many times that there is evidence that John XXIII was a freemason, I think the evidence was in Turkey, but I could be wrong on that, it has been awhile since I read that in a Catholic magazine, titled "The Seraph", not sure this publication is in print any longer.
I go into a bit of detail on John XXIII and his freemasonic escapades in Part 5 Who was John XXIII http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOgD0Yyoqts
-
Since he denied it, however, should we really consider him a pope after all?
This was my question as well -- I was just waiting until I finished the videos to see if you addressed this.
I'm also wondering about this. So far I've only watched parts 3 and 4, but it doesn't seem that the narrator was able to prove that Cardinal Siri was pope (as he says, Siri refused it several times), or that Cardinal Roncalli was not validly elected. He tries to show that Roncalli was the Masonic 'candidate,' but I didn't find he did an entirely convincing job of that, either. At the most, the video shows that Roncalli was not the ideal candidate for the papacy (surprise, surprise).
Guess I'll have to watch the whole thing and see if my opinion changes.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Oh wait, your screen name says it all. No wonder you said the things you did.
-
Oh wait, your screen name says it all. No wonder you said the things you did.
Mhm, ad hominem arguments are always classy...
Anyway, I did finish watching the video, and I'm still not convinced that the creator provides indisputable proof that Roncalli was a freemason, although a lot of the information he provides is certainly food for thought. But even if he was, would that automatically prevent him from being validly elected?
No, really, I'm asking, would it? Can you provide some evidence for or against it? I'd like to know.
Also, can someone confirm Thursday's claim that the signal would not be given unless a pope had accepted his office and chosen his name? Makes sense, but I'm not all that familiar with the procedures involved in a papal conclave. If so, why would Malachi Martin claim that Siri had rejected the papal claim, when he would have known full well that he could not reject the papacy after he had already assumed it (providing that what Martin said was true)?
-
Anyway, I did finish watching the video, and I'm still not convinced that the creator provides indisputable proof that Roncalli was a freemason, although a lot of the information he provides is certainly food for thought. But even if he was, would that automatically prevent him from being validly elected?
Remember that these masonic initiations are done in secret, it is very hard to have absolute proof as in video that he was a mason. However there is a lot of circuмstancial evidence that leads one to conclude so. For one, he received the the red hat from french freemason Vincent Aurial. He also made Yves Marsaudon, a 33rd degree mason, head of the knights malta. If he was a freemason (devil worshiper) according to canon law he would be ipso facto excommunicated, obviously making him ineligible for the papacy.
Police officers testimonies that he was seen attending Thursday evening meetings at the Masonic Lodge.
for me, and I don't have time to go through everything I've come across, there seems to be enough circuмstancial evidence, testimonies etc that Angelo Roncalli was a freemason.
-
FWIW, if Siri renounced his claim under duress, the renunciation is worthless -- i.e., it is as if it never happened.
IMO, the entire story will not be known until the Purification had accomplished a MAJOR housecleaning and all has been resolved.
-
I go into a bit of detail on John XXIII and his freemasonic escapades in Part 5 Who was John XXIII http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOgD0Yyoqts
Have you ever read "The Pope of the Council" by Fr. Ricossa? It is an Italian/French work, but a good bit has been translated into English. It is truly devastating where Roncalli's claims to orthodoxy and the papacy are concerned.
-
Yes, a five minute unambiguous signal of white smoke. This signal is never released unless the pope has accepted the office and chosen his name.
Thus you have a five to ten minute timeframe in which the Pope was elected and then immediately renounced it under duress. That is a highly improbable scenario bordering on ridiculous.
-
Yes, a five minute unambiguous signal of white smoke. This signal is never released unless the pope has accepted the office and chosen his name.
Thus you have a five to ten minute timeframe in which the Pope was elected and then immediately renounced it under duress. That is a highly improbable scenario bordering on ridiculous.
Vernacular masses are ridiculous too, so are bishops wearing rainbow vestments. All I want is an end to all the ridiculousness.
If you don't like that scenario you could go with the Vatican's official statement that the white smoke was caused by a strobe light.
Or perhaps the stove just had a mind of it's own.
-
Is it any wonder the Anti-Modernist Oath taken by bishops and priests, disappeared at the Second Vatican Council.
-
-
Yes, a five minute unambiguous signal of white smoke. This signal is never released unless the pope has accepted the office and chosen his name.
Thus you have a five to ten minute timeframe in which the Pope was elected and then immediately renounced it under duress. That is a highly improbable scenario bordering on ridiculous.
Vernacular masses are ridiculous too, so are bishops wearing rainbow vestments. All I want is an end to all the ridiculousness.
If you don't like that scenario you could go with the Vatican's official statement that the white smoke was caused by a strobe light.
Or perhaps the stove just had a mind of it's own.
That's not really an answer to the problem. The entire thesis rests upon that five minute window of time.
-
Yes, a five minute unambiguous signal of white smoke. This signal is never released unless the pope has accepted the office and chosen his name.
Thus you have a five to ten minute timeframe in which the Pope was elected and then immediately renounced it under duress. That is a highly improbable scenario bordering on ridiculous.
Vernacular masses are ridiculous too, so are bishops wearing rainbow vestments. All I want is an end to all the ridiculousness.
If you don't like that scenario you could go with the Vatican's official statement that the white smoke was caused by a strobe light.
Or perhaps the stove just had a mind of it's own.
That's not really an answer to the problem. The entire thesis rests upon that five minute window of time.
I can't imagine what might have happened there, but IF there were any threats they no doubt happened long before the "five minute" time frame.
Caminus, just curious did you even watch these YOUtubes?
I was wondering more about the time I read that John XXIII was a Mason, and googled these words, "Pope John XXIII Mason" much came up about him joining the Rosicrucians in Turkey, and that is what I read, he was a Rosicrucian.
-
I can't imagine what happened either and neither can Thursday, except by force of will and imagination. How could they threaten him before he was elected? The white smoke went up already. Five minutes lapsed and then black smoke. There's no way around this problem except to posit that within five minutes the most terrible and cruel form of coercion happened upon the newly elected Pope. Not likely to say the least.
I don't think I need to see all the videos to point out this evidently weak link in the chain of supposed events. If he can give a satisfactory response, then maybe I'll consider it. But until then, such a scenario is improbable at best. I'm not willing to level serious accusations based upon conjecture and hearsay. Those who assent to such "circuмstantial evidence" simply desire to resolve the mystery of iniquity within the Church and are willing to sacrifice intellectual integrity in order to so do.
This is entirely based on conjecture. So is sedevacantism. They are both untenable at best. It all comes down to the nature of evidence which alone can compel assent. If there is weak evidence, then the position is weak or untenable.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Siri#Conclave_speculation
Although claimed by one sedevacantist group that Siri had actually been elected to the papacy in 1958 and 1963, only to be displaced by Angelo Roncalli (Pope John XXIII) and then Giovanni Battista Montini (Pope Paul VI), Siri entirely submitted to the authority of the official popes and remained in full communion with the Church, refusing to support any sedevacantist organization. One small sedevacantist group, centered in Houston, Texas still claims him to have been the actual pope, despite Siri's own silence as to this claim. This small group, known as "Sirianists", have yet to offer any reasonable explanation[10] for the fact that Siri failed to support the sedevacantist movement, that he recognized John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II as legitimate popes, that despite his conservatism he celebrated the Mass according to the reformed 1970 Roman Missal and the other revised sacraments, and that he signed all of the docuмents of the Second Vatican Council. The Cardinal even somewhat defended the Council, as long as it was interpreted in the light of Tradition, though he did remark that, "If the Church were not divine, this Council would have buried it".[11] To explain Siri's silence as to what happened in the conclaves, supporters of the Siri Thesis have suggested that Siri was silenced by the conspirators' use of the Seal of the Confessional,[12] a method of silencing prelates suggested in other literature.
-
Here is an excellent source on Roncalli John 23 from Father dr Luigi Villa:
Article
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AoJmSjrya1v.Kst8SKLCjspeDNEF;_ylv=0/SIG=125fhm18v/SIG=12keq1im5/EXP=1302978864/**http%3A//www.novusordowatch.org/resources/John-XXIII-Beatified.pdf
-
I can't imagine what happened either and neither can Thursday, except by force of will and imagination. How could they threaten him before he was elected? The white smoke went up already. Five minutes lapsed and then black smoke. There's no way around this problem except to posit that within five minutes the most terrible and cruel form of coercion happened upon the newly elected Pope. Not likely to say the least.
I don't think I need to see all the videos to point out this evidently weak link in the chain of supposed events. If he can give a satisfactory response, then maybe I'll consider it. But until then, such a scenario is improbable at best. I'm not willing to level serious accusations based upon conjecture and hearsay. Those who assent to such "circuмstantial evidence" simply desire to resolve the mystery of iniquity within the Church and are willing to sacrifice intellectual integrity in order to so do.
This is entirely based on conjecture. So is sedevacantism. They are both untenable at best. It all comes down to the nature of evidence which alone can compel assent. If there is weak evidence, then the position is weak or untenable.
Are you Catholic?
-
Behold the fruit.
-
The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation allegedly also claimed that Siri had indeed been elected on the third ballot on October 26, 1958.[1] This is found, complete with FBI docuмent reference, in the book The Vatican Exposed: Money, Murder, and the Mafia by Paul L. Williams on pages 90–92. The docuмent Williams referred to, allegedly declassified, can no longer be found. Williams, since questioned by interested readers, has adamantly refused to comment on why he included the alleged docuмent and reference number in his book, or why the docuмent can no longer be viewed.
-
Here is an excellent source on Roncalli John 23 from Father dr Luigi Villa:
Article
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AoJmSjrya1v.Kst8SKLCjspeDNEF;_ylv=0/SIG=125fhm18v/SIG=12keq1im5/EXP=1302978864/**http%3A//www.novusordowatch.org/resources/John-XXIII-Beatified.pdf
Anyone clicking the above link, don't miss this part:
REALITY, POPE JOHN XXIII?
Now, one cannot ignore, here, the alleged initiation of monsignor Roncalli to the secret Masonic society
of the “ Rose Cross” , initiation that would have taken place during his stay in Turkey. As regards such initiation,
all we have is the written text of Pier Carpi, a “ mason” (2) also known for his biography of
Cagliostro (Meb publishers) and for an inquiry on the Merchants of the occult (Armenia
publishers). Author of those “ Prophecies of Pope John” , Pier Carpi maintains that, in 1935, while
Apostolic Delegate in Turkey, Roncalli was initiated to a secret Society, which he abstains from
naming, but whose initiation ceremony he describes (p. 53 and subsequent), which appears of the
Templarist Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ rite, such as that studied by Le Forestier. During the ceremony, Roncalli
took on the name of Johannes, the same he would take on as a Pontiff. The source used by Pier
Carpi was an aged member of the Rosa Cross (p. 35). In his aforementioned book, he also reports
about a session Roncalli attended, a few weeks following his initiation, at a temple of the Order.
There are, however, also other more serious arguments corroborating a real collusion between Roncalli
and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, as we will see.
The Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy, Virgilio Gaito, in two interviews given to the
reporter of “ L’ Italia Settimanale” and to that of “ Trenta Giorni” , the monthly of the
“ Comunione e Liberazione” association, to the question: “ Do you know if there are any priests
in the lodges of the Grand Orient; the buzz has it that some cardinal had been a brother… ”
he replied, “ Probably. I have no information of this fact. They say John XXIII was initiated
to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ when he was a Nuncio in Paris. (read more on the above link)
-
Why is Siri not even listed as getting votes at all in the '58 conclave?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_conclave
-
Because there is no such thing as a conspiracy...
-
Yes, a five minute unambiguous signal of white smoke. This signal is never released unless the pope has accepted the office and chosen his name.
Thus you have a five to ten minute timeframe in which the Pope was elected and then immediately renounced it under duress. That is a highly improbable scenario bordering on ridiculous.
How long does it take to threaten someone?
I don't know how your getting your ten minute scenario, from the white smoke to the pope appearing on the balcony usually takes twenty minutes. What we know is that there was a signal and that the pope never appeared.
Regardless the argument is not based on one item alone. I make all the arguments in the videos. Your free to disagree if you like.
-
Yes, a five minute unambiguous signal of white smoke. This signal is never released unless the pope has accepted the office and chosen his name.
Thus you have a five to ten minute timeframe in which the Pope was elected and then immediately renounced it under duress. That is a highly improbable scenario bordering on ridiculous.
And I will add this.
"Fr. Charles-Roux 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."
-
Are you Catholic?
Are you 12? I think you'll find the kids section at the bottom of the front page.
-
I guess in the end we may never know what truly happened, at least not until the Vatican is purged of modernists at some point in the future. Still, I think for my part I'll stick with what I would consider to be the safer opinion, which is that the man universally recognized as the pope is indeed the pope, and that we should pray for him as such, as a child prays for his father.
-
Why is Siri not even listed as getting votes at all in the '58 conclave?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_conclave
On Father Greeley's authority?
-
Yes, a five minute unambiguous signal of white smoke. This signal is never released unless the pope has accepted the office and chosen his name.
Thus you have a five to ten minute timeframe in which the Pope was elected and then immediately renounced it under duress. That is a highly improbable scenario bordering on ridiculous.
How long does it take to threaten someone?
I don't know how your getting your ten minute scenario, from the white smoke to the pope appearing on the balcony usually takes twenty minutes. What we know is that there was a signal and that the pope never appeared.
Regardless the argument is not based on one item alone. I make all the arguments in the videos. Your free to disagree if you like.
And this apparent white smoke couldn't POSSIBLY have another more simple and rational explanation?
If so, it seems the whole theory fails.
-
Siri celebrated the Novus Ordo!!
-
Yes, a five minute unambiguous signal of white smoke. This signal is never released unless the pope has accepted the office and chosen his name.
Thus you have a five to ten minute timeframe in which the Pope was elected and then immediately renounced it under duress. That is a highly improbable scenario bordering on ridiculous.
And I will add this.
"Fr. Charles-Roux 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."
That's an interesting story, but what am I supposed to do with it? I could quote something else from the internet that negates it. BTW, is this priest still alive?
-
Have to agree with Caminus here.
I like to say it because it's so rare when I'm able to.
But the Siri thesis is based entirely on circuмstantial evidence. Moreover, if he was elected Pope, he is now an anti-Pope, unless he can produce his true Magisterium to counter the false one of Vatican II. Yet we know he was a Vatican II cardinal.
The other question, the one that always gets ignored -- who is his successor and how was he appointed if Cardinal Siri was under constant surveillance?
Like sedeprivationism, the Siri thesis is a harmless way for people to square not having had a Pope for fifty years with their own consciences. For many it's very scary. Not for me, because I believe the Apocalypse clearly refers to this event.
When I say "harmless" I mean for everyone else but David Hobson. He is the only one I know of who seems to think acceptance of Siri as Pope is mandatory for salvation.
The whole thing with the smoke strikes me as smoke and mirrors ( get it? ) It reminds me of Windswept House, Malachi Martin sensationalism, or maybe the staged rescue of Jessica Lynch. A true Pope was elected, then they strongarmed him and within ten minutes sent out more smoke.
I'm sorry, these people are not that clumsy. The smoke may have sent out as a kind of "revelation of the method." The official story of 9/11 was meant to look staged, the official story was intended to sound phony. That is sort of how the devil operates these days -- he shows you he is behind certain events, knowing that people will deny it and thus they will become double-minded and will go into denial. It's a form of psychological trauma he enjoys inflicting on people.
Most people, just to get on with their lives, do not want to acknowledge the existence of such evil, but by not acknowledging it, they become more or less a part of it... Sorry if I'm getting too abstruse. But the smoke from the elections in 1958 and 1963 works according to the same principle, it's a sign that something is wrong, that the devil knows most people will ignore, thus becoming slightly more complicit in his plot.
-
What I don't get is how Siri kept getting put on the voting block each papal election? And then losing over and over? I understand the theory goes his life and "large family" were threatened...but why would he remain in this fake church and fake Vatican if this were true?
Anyone know what I'm talking about?
Can I keep talking in sentences that end in question marks?
Yes I can?
-
Sorry for the barbaric writing and repetitions in the last three paragraphs, I was under the gun and trying to edit the post before my time expired.
-
The whole thing with the smoke strikes me as smoke and mirrors ( get it? ) It reminds me of Windswept House, Malachi Martin sensationalism, or maybe the staged rescue of Jessica Lynch. A true Pope was elected, then they strongarmed him and within ten minutes sent out more smoke.
Ahh yes, the Siri/ white smoke thesis is RIDICULOUS! Those stupid fools! Bahahahahaha!!
But of course 9/11 was a conspiracy, there were no gas chambers, BXVI is a satanic anti-pope, nobody landed on the moon, the Jews control the world, and the government caused the Japanese earthquakes.
But the SIRI THESIS? Pure idiocy!! That could NEVER happen! :laugh1:
-
Siri celebrated the Novus Ordo!!
So did Lefebre and Thuc.
-
The whole thing with the smoke strikes me as smoke and mirrors ( get it? ) It reminds me of Windswept House, Malachi Martin sensationalism, or maybe the staged rescue of Jessica Lynch. A true Pope was elected, then they strongarmed him and within ten minutes sent out more smoke.
Ahh yes, the Siri/ white smoke thesis is RIDICULOUS! Those stupid fools! Bahahahahaha!!
But of course 9/11 was a conspiracy, there were no gas chambers, BXVI is a satanic anti-pope, nobody landed on the moon, the Jews control the world, and the government caused the Japanese earthquakes.
But the SIRI THESIS? Pure idiocy!! That could NEVER happen! :laugh1:
I was thinking along the same lines, the 1958 steal the papacy operation was done with just a bit more subtlety than the JFK and 911 operations.
I'd also like to add that Cardinal Siri is on record calling Vatican II the greatest mistake in history, he also said that it would take 50 years for the church to recover from John XXIII's pontificate.
In the first papragraph in an interview with Siri published the day before the October 1978 conclave, Siri says he would turn back the clock to before the Council. I cover it in Part 9 Year of Two Conclaves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvUWfaXG9lk
Put yourself in the man's shoes, what could he possibly do?
I mean a lot of people know about this stuff now but back then? Bellegrandi also writes about Siri and Ottiavani trying to stem the tide of progressivism, he compared them to kids throwing rocks at Soviet tanks.
The man did damage control, as bad as things are now, who knows what it would be like had it not been for Ottiavani and Siri.
-
Siri celebrated the Novus Ordo!!
So did Lefebre and Thuc.
ABL never celebrated the NO Mass "promulgated" in 1969.
No clue about Thuc.
-
I'd also like to add that Cardinal Siri is on record calling Vatican II the greatest mistake in history, he also said that it would take 50 years for the church to recover from John XXIII's pontificate.
In the first papragraph in an interview with Siri published the day before the October 1978 conclave, Siri says he would turn back the clock to before the Council. I cover it in Part 9 Year of Two Conclaves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvUWfaXG9lk
Put yourself in the man's shoes, what could he possibly do?
He says he would turn the clock back, greatest mistake in history, 50 years to recover...then he defies Divine Providence not once but TWICE in refusing the Papacy?
How does this make ANY sense?
-
http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Dec2004/Is_That_Chair_Vacant.htm
4.3. The Case of Cardinal Siri: It is being argued by some Sedevacantists that some very serious defects affected the Conclaves that elected Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, then, consequently John-Paul I and John-Paul II. It is being claimed that Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, the former Archbishop of Genoa, Italy was elected pope in the 1958, 1963 conclaves, and possibly also in 1978. Cardinal Siri was extremely popular in Italy, mostly for his strong social accomplishments in Genoa. He was also considered as a strong conservative, even though he did not publicly stand in defense of Tradition during the Vatican II council. So, apparently, Cardinal Siri had been 'elected' pope at the conclave that followed the death of Pope Pius XII. Some are going as far as telling us that he had accepted the election of his fellow cardinals, and had taken the name of Gregory XVII. Shortly before such 'election' was to be made public to the world, a group of cardinals would have revolted against him, and forced him to renounce to the supreme pontificate. Then, Cardinal Roncalli was chosen and appeared to the world as Pope John XXIII. Some Sedevacantist pulled out a recent report from the FBI to prove such thesis. They added on that 'Pope Siri' secretly appointed cardinals to succeed to him in the future. Frankly, such theory doesn't make sense, for a number of reasons. First of all there is a Church law that binds under secrecy all the proceedings of a conclave, under the penalty of excommunication for whoever would break such seal. Even if Cardinal Siri was properly elected as a pope, it is a matter of fact that he never showed it in public. He was among the cardinals that paid allegiance to both Popes John XXIII and Paul VI. After the 1958 and 1963 conclaves, he went back to his diocese of Genoa. In 1969, though reluctantly, he adopted the Novus Ordo Missae. Meanwhile, a French priest, Father Guérin, had established a 'conservative' community of priests in Genoa. Back in the seventies, Father Guérin was living in Paris, France, where he used to say a weekly Novus Ordo Mass all in Latin, with biretta and incense, which I attended a couple of times. I know personally two members of Fr. Guérin's community that have been ordained priests by Cardinal Siri. They have now an apostolate in France, and say the Novus Ordo Mass. Their ordination was held with the New Mass, though in a more conservative way. Finally, Cardinal Siri died in 1989. But, the most important reason why we must discard the "Pope Siri" theory is the fundamental principle that a peaceful acceptance of a pope by the Universal Church is the infallible sign and effect of a valid election. All theologians agree on that point. Cardinal Billot says: "God may allow that a vacancy of the Apostolic See last for a while. He may also permit that some doubt be risen about the legitimacy of such or such election. However, God will never allow the whole Church to recognize as Pontiff someone who is not really and lawfully. Thus, as long as a pope is accepted by the Church, and united with her like the head is united to the body, one can no longer raise any doubt about a possible defective election… For the universal acceptance of the Church heals in the root any vitiated election."21 Now, the kick: let us imagine that I am totally wrong, and that, indeed, Cardinal Siri was the real pope that came out of the 1958 and/or 1963 conclaves. Let's go even further: imagine for a moment that 'Pope Siri' secretly appointed cardinals, to be able to provide for a successor after his death. Such secretly appointed cardinals would be called cardinals in pectore (close to the heart). It happened a number of times in the history of the Church that popes appointed cardinals in pectore. For different reasons, the popes didn't want to make public their names at least for a while. Usually, the reason was to protect the life of such cardinals, who were living in countries where the Church was persecuted. This was the case for Cardinal Slipyj, head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church from 1944 till 1984. There is a rule which says that the name of any cardinal appointed in pectore had to be made public by the pope who appointed him. Thus, all cardinals appointed secretly whose name had not been revealed before the death of the pope who nominated them would automatically lose their title.22 This was the case of Cardinal Slipyj, who was made Cardinal in pectore by Pope John XXIII in 1960. As John XXIII never released his name, Cardinal Slipyj was unable to participate in the 1963 conclave. However, in 1965, Pope Paul VI officially restored Cardinal Slipyj's title, thus giving him all the rights and privileges of a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church. Consequently, any and every 'cardinal' that was appointed secretly by 'Pope Siri' lost their title in 1989, upon the death of Cardinal Siri, and automatically lost their right to participate in the election of 'Pope Siri's' successor. Such an argument may not be final to some people. They may try to tell us that 'Pope Siri' changed the law of a papal election, in order to allow cardinals in pectore to participate, thus allowing the election his successor. When it goes that far, the only thing we can say is that such conspiracy nuts have lost complete contact with reality.