Maybe. He still fell into heresy by supporting and enforcing the Vatican II sect, therefore, losing any papal authority he may have had.
Would not embracing Vatican II with it's teachings on religious liberty constitute heresy?
Did he embrace them? Secondly, no, religious liberty as a term is not heretical. 1) it's never been defined with the note of de fide and 2) there's probably a different understanding of the phrase depending on who you ask. I've seen a lot of people (conservative Novus Ordites) asser that it basically means religious toleration.That's fair. Although, now I'm unsure if you're implying whether Vatican 2 is not a heretical council by imparting a false understanding of religious liberty to those who embrace it.
I think we just had a round of where I was defending you against the charge of heresy from RomanTheo. When we asser that someone is a heretic, we'd better have 1) chapter and verse of which dogma they're directly denying and 2) proof that the person denied it.
To charge Siri with heresy, I'd need to see 1) citations from Siri himself and 2) an explanation for why it directly contradicts something that's de fide. And then if you confronted him about it, would he recant?
It's not really relevant to the discussion here, since if Siri materially held the office, then he held the office.
Would not embracing Vatican II with it's teachings on religious liberty constitute heresy?.
.This is what I was getting at, he still joined in with those cardinals who "have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication", namely, Vatican II; and is still responsible for the same errors and heresies they promoted. Abp. Lefebvre and others initially accepted the Council, but then publicly repudiated it. Siri did not and I only have his exterior actions to go off of which align him with the Vatican 2 Whore of Babylon.
Of course. And it is a general rule that a person in authority consents to something that happens under his authority, which it is his duty to control. So a bishop or cardinal has a duty to preach publicly the Catholic faith and condemn error. Therefore, if he remains silent in the presence of widespread error masquerading as the Catholic faith, he is presumed to consent to that error.
Yes, Siri IS the answer to the mystery of iniquity in the Church, the Pope who suffers much. We also will never know until it is revealed what horrors he was threatened with if he spoke truthfully to rightfully ascend to his Papacy. Millions killed by nuclear weapons and sent to Hell? Rome bombed, family murdered? Even if he should have risen above these things in faith and claimed his rightful position, we can't actually fathom what he faced.Again, this is reading into his interior forum. Outside of the hearsay of Malachi Martin and others, there's no way of knowing just what motivated him to stay quiet if he were the legitimate Pope. There's no evidence outside of some vague remark about a terrible secret.
Did he embrace them? Secondly, no, religious liberty as a term is not heretical. 1) it's never been defined with the note of de fide and 2) there's probably a different understanding of the phrase depending on who you ask. I've seen a lot of people (conservative Novus Ordites) asser that it basically means religious toleration.So, how is he any different than any of the other Vatican II "popes"? And if he isn't any different, then how is he "the answer" or "the key"?
I think we just had a round of where I was defending you against the charge of heresy from RomanTheo. When we asser that someone is a heretic, we'd better have 1) chapter and verse of which dogma they're directly denying and 2) proof that the person denied it.
To charge Siri with heresy, I'd need to see 1) citations from Siri himself and 2) an explanation for why it directly contradicts something that's de fide. And then if you confronted him about it, would he recant?
It's not really relevant to the discussion here, since if Siri materially held the office, then he held the office.
So, how is he any different than any of the other Vatican II "popes"? And if he isn't any different, then how is he "the answer" or "the key"?
That's fair. Although, now I'm unsure if you're implying whether Vatican 2 is not a heretical council by imparting a false understanding of religious liberty to those who embrace it.
He's different because as the legitimate pope his Magisterium would have been protected by the Holy Spirit. God would not allow a legitimate pope to teach error. But an imposter doesn't have the same protections. This really isn't that difficult.Then his offering of the New Mass and support and implementation of the teachings of Vatican 2 are protected, therefore, proving that there is no error or heresy in either.
He's different because as the legitimate pope his Magisterium would have been protected by the Holy Spirit. God would not allow a legitimate pope to teach error. But an imposter doesn't have the same protections. This really isn't that difficult.
Then his offering of the New Mass and support and implementation of the teachings of Vatican 2 are protected, therefore, proving that there is no error or heresy in either.
But we know this isn't true because there is error and heresy in both. Meaning Pope Gregory XVII taught these errors and offered an invalid liturgy. Therefore, he wasn't a secret Pope at all.
Yes, Siri IS the answer to the mystery of iniquity in the Church, the Pope who suffers much. We also will never know until it is revealed what horrors he was threatened with if he spoke truthfully to rightfully ascend to his Papacy. Millions killed by nuclear weapons and sent to Hell? Rome bombed, family murdered? Even if he should have risen above these things in faith and claimed his rightful position, we can't actually fathom what he faced.
Siri can be accused as having a lack of courage and moral weakness, but that doesn't disqualify his valid election. As he never implemented His Papacy, any "heresies" attributed to him, which I doubt there are, are moot at this point.
He's different because as the legitimate pope his Magisterium would have been protected by the Holy Spirit. God would not allow a legitimate pope to teach error. But an imposter doesn't have the same protections. This really isn't that difficult.Your condescending attitude really isn't that helpful.
So, how is he any different than any of the other Vatican II "popes"? And if he isn't any different, then how is he "the answer" or "the key"?He wasn't a Vll Pope- in fact he was the antithesis to Vll. He was elected in 1958, before the Council, and I daresay that Vll most likely would have never happened, or at least never have taken the freemasonic/ judaic turn had Pope Gregory XVll been seated in Rome. So removing him from the Papacy and seating anti-popes was key to the destruction of the (consilliar) Church.
Yes, Siri IS the answer to the mystery of iniquity in the Church, the Pope who suffers much. We also will never know until it is revealed what horrors he was threatened with if he spoke truthfully to rightfully ascend to his Papacy. Millions killed by nuclear weapons and sent to Hell? Rome bombed, family murdered? Even if he should have risen above these things in faith and claimed his rightful position, we can't actually fathom what he faced.
Siri can be accused as having a lack of courage and moral weakness, but that doesn't disqualify his valid election. As he never implemented His Papacy, any "heresies" attributed to him, which I doubt there are, are moot at this point.
Your condescending attitude really isn't that helpful.
I have read about the "Siri thesis", and I think it's a foregone conclusion that he was elected in the conclave, but what was supposed to be so terrible (in the eyes of his enemies) about Siri being Pope, that would prompt such dire threats and blackmail? What was he going to do that Pius XII had not already done? To whom did he pose such a threat? If nuclear war were on the table, the Soviets were the only ones who would have had this capability, and would have had a reason to be threatened. Or, for some reason, did the US not want him to be elected (Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ?), and they would have been the ones to use the nukes? Against Italy, an ostensible ally?
Or was it more a case of "because he's not Roncalli"? Because the enemies of the Church wanted Roncalli, and that Siri's election thwarted their plans?
.Cardinal Siri publicly criticized Vatican II. He even called it the "worst mistake in history" or something like that.
Of course. And it is a general rule that a person in authority consents to something that happens under his authority, which it is his duty to control. So a bishop or cardinal has a duty to preach publicly the Catholic faith and condemn error. Therefore, if he remains silent in the presence of widespread error masquerading as the Catholic faith, he is presumed to consent to that error.
The Truth as perennially taught by the Church should be in itself a bulwark against this kind of fraudulent usurpation, no?
If Siri's resignation was not valid, then he would have remained pope, since he was canonically elected, correct? Sort of like Benevacantism . . . Sirivacantism.
I think there's some difference in emphasis, in terms of what made the resignation invalid in each case, but essentially yet.
Siri: Canon Law states that resignations made under duress are invalid. So if you held a gun to a bishop's head and said, "resign," and he complied, the Church would still consider him the bishop. I'm sure there's some interpretation regarding the level of duress required. I'm sure mild duress would not count and may be considered persuasion rather than compulsion.
Benedict: most Bennyvacantists are focused on the "formula" of resignation, that he secretly didn't want to resign and so he flubbed up the formula required for legitimate resignation.
I find the Siri case very compelling but the Benedict argument weak ... and I'll come back to that later.
Yeah, maybe. But nothing else would be "helpful" in your case either. You have these emotional reactions (and therefore won't consider rationally) anything that doesn't fit in with your straight sedevacantist viewpoint, from your animosity right out of the gate against Archbishop Vigano, your railing against sedeprivationism, and now this. You won't think in terms of distinctions, and that's the key to your thinking on all these issues. You only think in binaries. Either someone is the pope or he isn't, vs. he can be a pope in one respect but not another. +Vigano bad because he hasn't declard the Holy See vacant and he used to belong to the Conciliar hierarchy ... and similarly with +Siri.Gee you sound a bit emotional there Lad!
Not everyone who belongs to the Conciliar Church is a formal heretic, and it is possible to be elected to or designated to office before being able to formally excercise its authority. If a layman were elected and accepted, he'd be legitimate holder of the office at that moment, but he could not actually exercise the teaching authority of the office without being ordained and then consecrated. That distinction can actually be found in St. Robert Bellarmine.
But anything that doesn't fit in with your simplistic vision of Novus Ordo bad and See vacant, you reject and rail against without making any rational arguments, and then when others present them you ignore them or filter them out.
So it's gotten to the point that I don't really need to be "helpful", since you don't want to be "helped" ... in other words, you refuse to think outside of your own personal conclusions and there's no real point discussing these matters with you.
Would he not then have lost the papacy afterwards through heresy or, at the least, schism by being joined to the "Conciliar sect," celebrating the NO, etc.?These are the same questions I have. It makes sense in regard to what may have happened in the conclave of 1958, but then it goes every which way due to his actions after that and the parties reporting these details (Malachi Martin being entirely suspect).
And then what?
And what about when he died, even if he retained the papacy despite the above?
I question where the Sirivacantist theory gets us.
If Siri's resignation was not valid, then he would have remained pope, since he was canonically elected, correct? Sort of like Benevacantism . . . Sirivacantism.
Are there Successors to Siri ("Pope Gregory XVII")? Is there a current Pope in hiding according according to the Siri thesis?Some seem to believe so. Even though there's literally no evidence for it outside of the claims of someone, if I recall correctly, in Texas who knows the identity of his purported successor. Why he doesn't just come out and make himself known, given all of the trad clans fighting each other right now, God only knows. Perhaps because he doesn't exist? Maybe.
Some seem to believe so. Even though there's literally no evidence for it outside of the claims of someone, if I recall correctly, in Texas who knows the identity of his purported successor. Why he doesn't just come out and make himself known, given all of the trad clans fighting each other right now, God only knows. Perhaps because he doesn't exist? Maybe.
I may have posted the wrong videos. I know he does make the claim in one part of that series, I'll try to dig it up when I have time later.
I wasn't aware the Giuffre says there was a successor to Siri, or claimed to know who it was. I listened to a good bit of those two videos and couldn't find where he says that. Could you give a timestamp or something?
I may have posted the wrong videos. I know he does make the claim in one part of that series, I'll try to dig it up when I have time later.I was mistaken, I think I misunderstood him in the second or third part when he was talking about Malachi Martin.
These are the same questions I have. It makes sense in regard to what may have happened in the conclave of 1958, but then it goes every which way due to his actions after that and the parties reporting these details (Malachi Martin being entirely suspect).
It appears he did take an oath of silence when forced to abdicate the Seat.
.
An oath whose purpose is to destroy the Church would obviously not be binding.
According to Father Luigi Villa's report in Chiesa Viva magazine, Vatican II was a ʝʊdɛօ-masonic coup d'etat that was planned in the 1950s.
We know that, and the Dimonds said the same thing about the Siri situation (which they seemed to find very credible). But for some reason he was under the impression that he'd be committing a grave sin to break it..
There can be no doubt of this; Vatican II has their fingerprints all over it. I don't believe the line that these papal imposters were well-meaning men with minds that had just been poisoned with Modernism, that they were confused or lost their senses. This was clearly done by design. Cui bono? None other than Satan himself.The time has long since passed for excusing their actions in this way. If one cannot see that these men are infiltrators and Antipopes, then they are blind. This is the contradiction MHFM pointed out in their video on the SSPX. The R&R position was tenable when there was still the question of them being legitimate, but confused or poisoned by Modernism, but once Assisi happened under the Deuce, and the subsequent spiritual abominations since then with the Rat and Frank Bergoglio, I'm sorry, but, you're just totally blind at this point if you believe these men are anything more than just material occupiers of the papacy.
I have to agree. One sins by promulgating heresy, but the other sins by omission and silence.
On a certain level, I don't think it matters much whether he or Roncalli won that election. I think either one was just as bad.
And if I had to choose to be in the eternal shoes of either Pontius Pilate or Cardinal Siri, I'd choose Pontius Pilate, since he was less responsible for his actions.
The time has long since passed for excusing their actions in this way. If one cannot see that these men are infiltrators and Antipopes, then they are blind. This is the contradiction MHFM pointed out in their video on the SSPX. The R&R position was tenable when there was still the question of them being legitimate, but confused or poisoned by Modernism, but once Assisi happened under the Deuce, and the subsequent spiritual abominations since then with the Rat and Frank Bergoglio, I'm sorry, but, you're just totally blind at this point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1v5t0xbcUo&t=484s
It's great you think that. Now, try addressing their arguments.
In reality, it’s the Dimonds who are blinded that they cannot see the good in anything or anyone but themselves. In this sense, they are mentally unstable nutcases of prideful will who have gone off the deep end into sectarian extremism. They shouldn’t be compared to a great figure like Tertullian because they aren’t worth 1/10000000000000000th of his worth, but essentially they fell into the same trap of zealotry.
In my view, they are schismatics without a doubt. :popcorn:
It's great you think that. Now, try addressing their arguments.
Regarding…? ::)Start with what I posted and go from there, I don't care.
Cheerios vs Frosted Flakes?
Start with what I posted and go from there, I don't care.
I already did bruh. Cajetan and John of St. Thomas’ positions were never condemned. R&R hold to them. They’re not heretical positions.
Plenty of other sedevacantists have refuted the issues with the way R&R utilize Cajetan and John of St. Thomas. I'm not going to waste my time on that here.
The bros Dimond think that +++Lefebvre, Williamson, some Sede clergy like Jenkins, et al are all heretics for not being dogmatic Sedevacantists. EENS is another issue for which they think the above were damned heretics, but that’s another can of worms.
First, they have never said they were "damned heretics" you aren't damned until you're dead, and that's impossible for them to know.
Second, yes, EENS is a dogma of the faith, making statements suggesting that pagans, Jєωs, and Muslims can be saved in their own religions, but not by them, is an explicit denial of that point. +Sanborn and +McKenna have both proclaimed these errors.
+Lefebvre saw Assisi. He didn’t espouse Sedevacantism before he passed. He thought it was possible, but not certain. Dimonds think he was a heretic of bad will. Do you agree with that?
He explicitly teaches that people in non-Catholic religions can be saved by the Catholic Church without being Catholic in Against the Heresies. That would at least constitute material heresy, but not of bad will. Where are you getting the bad will part from?
Also, if you believe in the Dimond position, how is it that you attend an SSPX chapel and receive sacraments from notorious heretics who are not Sedevacantists and who don’t hold to the “true” position of EENS while being in the Dimondite terminology “imposing heretics?” Hmmm?
:popcorn:QuoteSo, a traditional Catholic who is uncompromising about the Catholic faith - who wants to take advantage of the inestimable graces the sacraments provide - would have to receive sacraments from a priest who is not in full agreement with him on one of these issues, if he is to receive them at all. Is that an acceptable course of action? As will be shown in this section, we believe the answer is yes – provided that the Catholic doesn’t agree with or support the priest, and provided that the priest is not notorious or imposing about his heretical position. But fewer and fewer priests meet these requirements as this Great Apostasy continues. Moreover, there is no positive obligation to receive sacraments from any priest who holds a heretical position, even if he is not notorious or imposing about his heretical position. Therefore, if people don’t want to go they don’t have to.https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/question-whether-one-may-receive-sacraments/ (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/question-whether-one-may-receive-sacraments/)
I'm also not the only person here who holds to the dogma of EENS or agrees with MHFM on a lot of issues. In the above, I am the one who "wants to go" to the Sacraments and am well aware of my priest's position, which is actually not at all the liberal teachings of the SSPX leadership.
Just stay home alone and pray the 15 decades bruh. :laugh2:
Nah. I'll do the daily 15 decades and go to Mass on Sunday. :clown:
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/question-whether-one-may-receive-sacraments/ (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/question-whether-one-may-receive-sacraments/)
I'm also not the only person here who holds to the dogma of EENS or agrees with MHFM on a lot of issues. In the above, I am the one who "wants to go" to the Sacraments and am well aware of my priest's position, which is actually not at all the liberal teachings of the SSPX leadership.
Just stay home alone and pray the 15 decades bruh. :laugh2:
Nah. I'll do the daily 15 decades and go to Mass on Sunday. :clown:
Responses are in red, bruh
That's an over-simplification of where I stand. I can tell we are not going to get along.
LOOL!
Your responses didn’t address the issues at all. They are an apologia de la Dimond with an embarrassing hesitancy to take matters to their most necessary implications because of being on a forum which is R&R and because you attend an SSPX chapel. :laugh1:
Just come out of the closet with the logical conclusions of your beliefs instead of dancing around the issues.
DigitalLogos :clown::
-R&R are heretics.
-non-Feeneyites are heretics.
-The vast majority of Trads are heretics and their leaders heresiarchs.
No, he wasn't, that's absurd. If you know it, and I know it, and every catechized fourth-grader knows it, then a pre-Vatican 2 cardinal certainly knew it. He was just a coward who refused to stand up and do his duty.
I've been mulling over the Siri Thesis, and while I am quite convinced that Siri was indeed elected Pope in 1958 but, for whatever reason, did not endure in his exercise of the office, handing it over to Roncalli in another conclave, I'm puzzled by a couple of things:
First, the threat of a nuclear attack on Rome. Presumably this would have been by the Soviets, "egged on" by whomever wanted Roncalli to ascend to the papacy --- again, this was apparently not so much because Siri was Siri, but because he was not Roncalli, and if another cardinal had been elected, the objection would have been the same --- "we wanted Roncalli". So let's say that Siri had said "go ahead, make my day", and had remained as Pope Gregory XVII. Then the bombs start falling, and there is a parking lot where the Vatican and Rome used to be. Who, then, benefits? Cui bono? How are the ends accomplished that would have been accomplished if Roncalli had been elected? (And, unless he had been spirited out before the nuclear attack, Roncalli would be dead, as would be the rest of the Cardinals.) Was it a question of "well, we can destroy the Church and undermine the Faith one way or the other --- either Roncalli can become Pope and things can be set in motion according to our plan, or there will be no Cardinals, no Vatican, and, at least at the moment, no Pope, and we will accomplish our ends that way"? The communists, the "learned elders", the Freemasons will then destroy the Church and the Faith through a "Plan B"? And what would that plan have consisted of? Or do they just throw up their hands, say "that Siri was one tough [insert expletive of choice here], we tried, it didn't work, such is life"?
Second, there are supposedly going to be these riots that break out. Where? Led by whom? How widespread will they be, and how long will they last? And will there be riots because all of these rioters so object to Siri being Pope? Or riots because all of these people wanted Roncalli and didn't get him? I seriously doubt there was a place anywhere in the Catholic world, where any large groups of people would have objections either way. Did Roncalli promise all of these people something that they'd better get "or else"? And what would that have been?
Again, I can buy Siri having been elected Pope, but the other things, they don't quite add up.
I'm not sure how things would have played out had Siri stayed in office. Perhaps they were bluffing, or perhaps they had some backup plan. Some Cardinals and bishops did not attend Vatican II because of "poor health" or "other obligations". They could have had some guy in reserve. We don't really know.
The rioting thing especially doesn't add up.
Great. That's your interpretation for which you have no proof. That has no impact to whether or not he was the legitimate pope..
And it's easy for you to sit in you easy chair with a beer and declare someone a coward, when you have absolutely no idea whether given the types of threats he was facing you'd buckle as well. He had a large extended family. What if someone told you step down as pope and shut up, or else we'll start murdering, kidnapping, and torturing your nieces and newphews. Or we're going to round up and execute every single priest behind the Iron curtain unless you comply. Or we're going to nuke the Vatican and a bunch of majority-Catholic cities. Sure, he should have trusted God and gone ahead with it, but for you to sit here and judge him a coward from your easy chair, just shut the hell up. God alone is his judge, not you.
Acc to H Mann( Lives Popes) there is a dispute re Stephen II whom he describes as ' elected but not consecrated'... thereby rendering him as true or not true Il Papa acc to whom one agrees w/....
This sounds very similar to Siri election..:popcorn:
Sorry, I didn't mean to get you riled up like that.
"The selection of the true Pope, according to the prophets, will be: a) almost miraculous; b) soon after the terrible war and revolutions; c) the selectors will assemble under many difficulties; d) some prophets foretell the intervention of Saints Peter and Paul and angels..." -Fr. Culleton, The Prophets and Our Times 1941 A.D. (Imprimatur)
"I see the Holy Father in great distress. He lives in another palace and receives only a few in his presence. If the wicked party know their own great strength, they would even now have made an attack. I fear the Holy Father will suffer many tribulations before his death, for I see the black counterfeit church (http://www.opusdeialert.com/footnotes.htm) gaining ground, I see its fatal influence on the public. The distress of the Holy Father and of the Church is really so great that one ought to pray to God day and night. I have been told to pray much for the Church and the Pope...The people must pray earnestly for the extirpation (Rooting out, destruction) of the dark church." -Prophetic Vision of Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824 A.D.) Augustinian Nun, Stigmatist from the book, The Life of Anne Catherine Emmerich, by Very Rev. Carl E. Schmoger, C.SS.R, Vol. ii, pages (Ibid, pages 292-293)
Quote(Prophecy of Ven. Bernard de Bustis, 15th c.): "...near the time of the Antichrist, will come... a most violent conflict with the Roman Church such that there will be great tribulations. At this time, a schism will be produced in the bosom of the Church on the occasion of the election of the pope... there is one who will be called the true pope, but he will not be truly so. He will persecute the true pope and all those who obey him, so that the majority will declare themselves for the antipope rather than for the true pope. But this antipope will have a sad end, and the true one will remain the unique and uncontested pontiff. ..."
"The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and 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 and Bosius that Rome shall apostatise from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time 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."
-Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861
In September 1958, about seven or
eight days before the Conclave, I was at the Sanctuary of
Orope, attending one of the usual dinners at Attilio Botto’s,
a Biellese industrialist who fancied gathering around him
competent from various branches, to discuss the different
issues. That day had been invited a character I knew as a
high Masonic authority in contact with the Vatican. He told
me, driving me home, that “. . .The next Pope would not be
Siri, as it was murmured in some Roman circles, because
he was too authoritarian a cardinal. They would elect a
Pope of conciliation. The choice has already fallen on the
patriarch of Venice Roncalli. “Chosen by whom?” I
rejoined surprised. “By our Masonic representatives in the
Conclave,” responded placidly my kind escort. And then it
escaped me:
’’There are freemasons in the Conclave?” “Certainly,”
was the reply, “the Church is in our hands.” I rejoined
perplexed: “Who, then, is in charge in the Church?” After a
brief pause, the voice of my escort uttered precisely: “No
one can say where the upper echelons are. The echelons are
occult.”
Maybe. He still fell into heresy by supporting and enforcing the Vatican II sect, therefore, losing any papal authority he may have had.After much deliberation, I rescind my statement here. I still have much skepticism of the actions of Siri after the 1958 conclave, but it's clear that he was indeed elected.
After much deliberation, I rescind my statement here. I still have much skepticism of the actions of Siri after the 1958 conclave, but it's clear that he was indeed elected.How did you go from writing what "may have happened in the 1958 conclave" to "it's clear he was indeed elected" in a matter of 24 hours? What was said to convince you he was in fact elected?
How did you go from writing what "may have happened in the 1958 conclave" to "it's clear he was indeed elected" in a matter of 24 hours? What was said to convince you he was in fact elected?Review of the facts surrounding the conclave. That still doesn't excuse his accepting V2 and saying the Novus Ordo, and whether he still would've fallen from the papacy through apostasy; but the facts remain that he was elected and then was pressured into abdicating the 1958 conclave. The subsequent claims about the other conclaves are dubious. I already had some acceptance of the thesis.
I have read about the "Siri thesis", and I think it's a foregone conclusion that he was elected in the conclave, but what was supposed to be so terrible (in the eyes of his enemies) about Siri being Pope, that would prompt such dire threats and blackmail? What was he going to do that Pius XII had not already done? To whom did he pose such a threat? If nuclear war were on the table, the Soviets were the only ones who would have had this capability, and would have had a reason to be threatened. Or, for some reason, did the US not want him to be elected (Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ?), and they would have been the ones to use the nukes? Against Italy, an ostensible ally?According to Mary Ball Martinez, Roncalli was elected solely as a place holder for Montini. His assignment was to make Montini a cardinal. Maybe Siri would have thwarted that most essential part of the plan. Montini was the sole designate of the Jєωιѕн mob, tasked with bringing VII to completion and implementation. He was trained for this assignment from his youth, and perhaps, in a sense and through his parents, before his birth.
Or was it more a case of "because he's not Roncalli"? Because the enemies of the Church wanted Roncalli, and that Siri's election thwarted their plans?
Is it incuмbent upon the Church to know with certainty and proof that Cardinal Siri or someone else was elected Pope and sidelined or is it enough to be able to point to promulgated heresy of claimants since death of Pope Pius XII as proof that now at this point the Church lacks a Pope? The Truth as perennially taught by the Church should be in itself a bulwark against this kind of fraudulent usurpation, no?I think we have to point to a long game strategy, beginning with Benedict XV, which rotted out the hierarchy from within, so that when the designated bulldozer came into his usurped power, the Church (read:hierarchy) would already be long undone, and hence incapable of acting:
I find the Siri case very compelling but the Benedict argument weak ... and I'll come back to that later.Juridically, BXI is a usurper; and the successor of the successor of the successor of the successor of the first usurper. He's a dog in a world of dogs eating other dogs.
That still doesn't excuse his accepting V2 and saying the Novus Ordo, and whether he still would've fallen from the papacy through apostasy ...
.I have no opinion on the Siri controversy, except I believe he was elected, and then bullied to step aside. What I do find interesting is the parallel with our Lord's Passion. Jesus was "elected Pope," or "crowned as King," by the Jews on Palm Sunday; and immediately they implemented their plan to kill Him.
An oath whose purpose is to destroy the Church would obviously not be binding. In fact, it would be a sin to observe it. This is not only common sense, it is something explicitly taught to children in 1st Communion catechism class. To say that a cardinal did not know this is absurd.
This is probably the most difficult angle of the Siri thesis. I don't know of any version of it in which Siri doesn't come out as the worst coward since Pontius Pilate. At least Pontius Pilate could claim he was a simple pagan and didn't know that Christ was God, and was threatened with his life. But Siri was threatened as a cardinal of the Catholic Church and caved in, -- as pope, no less, the vicar of Christ, with the most powerful graces of state of any human being on this planet -- and consented to hand over the reins of the Church to its worst enemies, who were psychopathic mass murderers (if you believe the hydrogen-bomb-over-Rome theory), and allowed them to take over the Church?! A cardinal, who not only had (presumably) the virtue of Faith, and should have believed that God would triumph over His enemies, but also had almost 2,000 years of history behind him to see that the Church had overcome countless such attacks and persecutions and would easily triumph over this one again? How could he think it would be a good idea to allow people threatening mass murder and/or schism to take the papacy from him?
On a certain level, I don't think it matters much whether he or Roncalli won that election. I think either one was just as bad.
And if I had to choose to be in the eternal shoes of either Pontius Pilate or Cardinal Siri, I'd choose Pontius Pilate, since he was less responsible for his actions.
Well, I've just this over and over again how Siri was a coward ... but it's easy to do from one's armchair. ICould it be that the Holy Ghost stopped his mouth, because God was ready to punish the world by allowing a monstrous persecution of the Church?
Excuse? No. But it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was the legitimate pope. Then you use the term "apostasy" incorrectly, and you continue to charge Siri with heresy without any evidence.Yes, you're right. I did misuse the term, if the Novus Ordo is not in fact a new religion. But you are also insisting that he held the Catholic faith whole and entire when his external acts show differently.
Yes, you're right. I did misuse the term, if the Novus Ordo is not in fact a new religion. But you are also insisting that he held the Catholic faith whole and entire when his external acts show differently.I just wonder if the evidence is so strong that Cardinal Siri was elected. I think it’s almost self evident that someone was elected and then sidelined in order to have an invalid election of Roncalli. If it were me I wouldn’t choose to elect the Cardinal that everyone was looking to be elected to be the guy to sideline. If I want to disappear a Pope into obscurity I pick a more obscure candidate for that position and use Cardinal Siri as a red herring. Who that could have been idk, for my part most of the other Cardinals that I couldn’t even name to save my life would have worked.
I'm just holding him to the same standards of the rest of the Novus Ordo hierarchy. If they are material heretics because they adhere to the New Religion, then so is Siri. +Lefebvre denounced V2 and the Novus Ordo, as did many others, but not Siri, so based on his actions I see someone who adhered to the Whore of Babylon.
We can speculate all day on what motivated him and whatnot. But his external acts speak otherwise.
I'm sorry Lad, but you have this penchant for discovering some conspiracy and holding to it with dogmatic vigor even when the evidence is lacking, like in this case.
I think we have to point to a long game strategy, beginning with Benedict XV, which rotted out the hierarchy from within, so that when the designated bulldozer came into his usurped power, the Church (read:hierarchy) would already be long undone, and hence incapable of acting:The Church is a perfect society and hence perfectly capable of acting.
See Isaias 3: For behold the sovereign the Lord of hosts shall take away from Jerusalem, and from Juda the valiant and the strong, the whole strength of bread, and the whole strength of water. The strong man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the cunning man, and the ancient. The captain over fifty, and the honourable in countenance, and the counsellor, and the architect, and the skillful in eloquent speech. And I will give children to be their princes, and the effeminate shall rule over them. And the people shall rush one upon another, and every man against his neighbour: the child shall make it tumult against the ancient, and the base against the honourable.
I just wonder if the evidence is so strong that Cardinal Siri was elected. I think it’s almost self evident that someone was elected and then sidelined in order to have an invalid election of Roncalli. If it were me I wouldn’t choose to elect the Cardinal that everyone was looking to be elected to be the guy to sideline. If I want to disappear a Pope into obscurity I pick a more obscure candidate for that position and use Cardinal Siri as a red herring. Who that could have been idk, for my part most of the other Cardinals that I couldn’t even name to save my life would have worked.Yes, I agree. I think the white smoke implies something happened there, but how/why do we "know" it was Siri? Why is it so clear that *he* was elected/how do we know without a doubt that he was elected?
Could it be that the Holy Ghost stopped his mouth, because God was ready to punish the world by allowing a monstrous persecution of the Church?
And also, he was never sworn in, correct? Would the Assistance of the Holy Ghost come upon him from the moment of election, or only after he had taken his oath? Was he come to full term, or was Siri an abortion?
Yes, I agree. I think the white smoke implies something happened there, but how/why do we "know" it was Siri? Why is it so clear that *he* was elected/how do we know without a doubt that he was elected?
I’ll try to find the evidence. All the sources indicate that it was Siri. Paul Williams asserted that the CIA/FBI had sources in the conclave who even told them that he took the name Gregory XVII. But multiple sources indicate that it was Siri. Numerous sources also indicate that Siri led the early ballots of even the 1978 conclave that brought us Luciani.The strongest evidence has got to be the docuмents of Vatican II. The CIA and Malachi Martin are not trustworthy sources.
If the only evidence was the white smoke, I wouldn’t be convinced ... since by itself they could have botched the procedure to generate the smoke.
Could it be that the Holy Ghost stopped his mouth, because God was ready to punish the world by allowing a monstrous persecution of the Church?He accepted the office or else there would have not been the white smoke. There is no oath of office in the political sense
And also, he was never sworn in, correct? Would the Assistance of the Holy Ghost come upon him from the moment of election, or only after he had taken his oath? Was he come to full term, or was Siri an abortion?
The strongest evidence has got to be the docuмents of Vatican II. The CIA and Malachi Martin are not trustworthy sources.But, even so, that's not evidence that it had to be Siri. If we were to liken this to a criminal case, we would need evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt. Hearsay and conjecture isn't enough.
But, even so, that's not evidence that it had to be Siri. If we were to liken this to a criminal case, we would need evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt. Hearsay and conjecture isn't enough.Yes. After looking at the evidence proposing that it was Cardinal Siri and the people claiming that he had a successor; I lean in the direction that it was not Cardinal Siri and that this was disinformation put out by those who carried out the scheme.
Williams' information is way too detailed to ignore.
Williams says that on the third ballot, Siri was elected and chose the name Gregory XVII. What he doesn't quite get, not being Catholic, is that a papal name isn't chosen until one has accepted the election.
I'm sorry Lad, but you have this penchant for discovering some conspiracy and holding to it with dogmatic vigor even when the evidence is lacking, like in this case.
It is absolutely absurd to claim that there's no evidence. Uncharacteristically of you, you've latched onto a contempt for Siri because he accepted Vatican II and the NOM and you are filtering out the evidence, which is substantial and real. This is NOT just a fanciful narrative based on the smoke signals.I already said that I agree that it appears he was elected in 1958. Must I keep repeating that? There is no contempt here.
But, even so, that's not evidence that it had to be Siri. If we were to liken this to a criminal case, we would need evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt. Hearsay and conjecture isn't enough.
I already said that I agree that it appears he was elected in 1958. Must I keep repeating that? There is no contempt here.
The mystery behind the white smoke and the secret post-election meeting of the 1958 Conclave may not have been uncovered if it were not for Mr. Scortesco. Scortesco was the cousin of two members of the Vatican’s Noble Guard, including the President of the Noble Guard, which was responsible for guarding the conclaves of 1958 and 1963 and making sure that no communication occurred with the outside. Scortesco revealed the following in a published letter:QuoteScortesco: “In the case of John XXIII (1958) and of Paul VI (1963), there were communications with the outside. It was thus known that there were several ballots in the first conclave [1958] which resulted in the election of Cardinal Tedeschini and in the second [1963], Cardinal Siri.” (Excerpt from the French Newsletter, Introibo, No. 61, July-August-September, 1988, Association Noel Pinot, Angers, France, p. 3.)
The problem I have with this is that the cardinals are not allowed to communicate with the outside, and in fact are prisoners until the new pope is announced.The Modernist masonic cardinals don't give 1 hooey about vows to God; their job is to infiltrate, conquer and control the papacy at all costs. The masons were infiltrating the church probably 100 years before the 1950s (Pope Pius IX was imprisoned in the vatican, remember?).
So this guy Scortesco is claiming that his cousins (including the President of security) violated their most sacred duty to ensure the integrity of the papal election.The italian nobles/security team don't take the papal election vows of secrecy that Cardinals do. Secondly, these "whistleblowers" are actually defending the papacy by showing the corruption that happened during the 58 conclave. Thirdly, these non-cardinals can only do so much to ensure the integrity of the conclave. Their job is extremely focused - make sure non-cardinals don't get in/out. No one can stop a conspiracy of cardinals, working together, with a planned way of communicating to the outside. Up until that point in history, not only was such a thing unexpected but the technology didn't exist to monitor everyone at all times...especially if you didn't expect such masonic cardinals to be so bold.
It's certainly possible for anyone to do any wicked act, but this seems really hard to believe. These people were Italian nobility, people of high ideals, who had promised to defend the pope. And obviously they would have been ready to give their life for him. To say that they would betray the papacy in this manner would be like saying the Secret Service would betray the president of this country. Such a thing has never happened in the history of this country. And the noble guard are motivated not just by a natural patriotism, but by a supernatural devotion to the vicar of Christ. The thought of them allowing the conclave to be violated just doesn't seem likely.You're assuming that ALLOWED the conclave to be violated. Not only does charity assume the contrary, but common sense tells us that the enemy they were dealing with (i.e. masons) are a highly-prepared, powerful, and uniquely sophisticated. I'm sure security did everything in their power to stop leaks, but the masons were 2-3 steps ahead of them.
It's like the Swiss Guards, whom they work with as the pope's bodyguard. The Swiss Guards are ready to die for the pope. Just read what those guys did to protect Pius IX during the masonic invasion of Rome, and try to imagine any of them allowing people to come in and threaten to murder a newly elected pope. I realize that this is a century later, but these weren't modernist clergy, they were laypeople who had been little affected by modernism.The Swiss Guards aren't INSIDE the conclave. Those who threatened Siri WERE THE MASONIC CARDINALS THEMSELVES (the French/German Cardinals were, are still, the most modernist). The masonic cardinals threatened Siri before the conclave ended formally, because they knew Siri would abide by the vow of silence.
On top of all of that, if this guy really had been guilty of such a disgraceful treachery, why would he have told Scortesco about such a thing? That doesn't make any sense either.How is it treachery to expose the infiltration of the papacy? :confused: I don't follow your logic.
Pax, the cardinals are imprisoned in the conclave. The noble guard are their wardens. It is the job of the noble guard to prevent the cardinals from communicating with the outside or vice versa, just as much as it is the job of a regular prison warden to prevent prisoners from communicating with the outside of vice versa.That's a horrible analogy. The better analogy is where the US President meets in the oval office, and discuss classified docuмents while the secret service stands outside the doors, not knowing what's going on inside. You can protect someone without being in the same room. The noble guard are NOT inside the conclave.
That's a horrible analogy. The better analogy is where the US President meets in the oval office, and discuss classified docuмents while the secret service stands outside the doors, not knowing what's going on inside. You can protect someone without being in the same room. The noble guard are NOT inside the conclave.No, the Secret Service does not prevent the president from communicating with the outside. They are standing guard outside. On the other hand, the noble guard is responsible for preventing anyone from going into or out of the conclave, and also to prevent the cardinals from communicating with the outside.
So, if someone got out, that means one of the prison guards betrayed his duty.?? How about no Cardinal "got out" but they passed a message to one of the vatican guards, who then passed it to someone outside. Are you honestly naive enough to think that the masons didn't also infiltrate part of Vatican security?
The problem here is that Scortesco claims that the cardinals communicated with the outside during the conclave. The noble guard's job was to prevent this; evidently they didn't do their job, according to Scortesco.Exactly. The masons infiltrated the Cardinals but they can't infiltrate a security team? It only takes 1 leak by 1 man. 1 cardinal passes notes to 1 security guard to communicate with the outside. This kind of thing has been going on since the beginning of time.
Exactly. The masons infiltrated the Cardinals but they can't infiltrate a security team? It only takes 1 leak by 1 man. 1 cardinal passes notes to 1 security guard to communicate with the outside. This kind of thing has been going on since the beginning of time.I'm confused. You said earlier:
You're assuming they ALLOWED the conclave to be violated. Not only does charity assume the contrary, but common sense tells us that the enemy they were dealing with (i.e. masons) are a highly-prepared, powerful, and uniquely sophisticated. I'm sure security did everything in their power to stop leaks, but the masons were 2-3 steps ahead of them.
So do you think the noble guard betrayed their trust to protect the conclave or didn't you?Not the ones related to the guy were talking about. Again, there only needs to be 1 leaker/mason out of 100 security men. But there were likely far more.
Not the ones related to the guy were talking about. Again, there only needs to be 1 leaker/mason out of 100 security men. But there were likely far more.Oh, I see the problem. When I talked about respecting the papacy, I wasn't implying they did something wrong by violating an oath of secrecy in the conclave. You are correct that they have no such oath. I was talking about not protecting the integrity of the papal election.
You chastised the guys who were "whistleblowers", saying they should respect the papacy (implying they took some sort of vow of silence). I was just saying that a "normal person's" reaction to finding fraud is to expose it. And since the noble guard has seen the ill effects of the infiltration, they are speaking out. They didn't take a vow of silence, so their reaction is normal and brave.
Yes, it would be brave to expose a security breach in their own security force, but I question why such a breach happened in the first place.Ok, gotcha. Well, breaches happen when infiltrators have enough people on their side. If you read the book "the Rhine flows into the Tiber" the journalist who covered V2 docuмents how a small, well-organized collection of Cardinals (i.e 20-30%), who had infiltrators in key positions, were able to blind-side the orthodox cardinals with their bold liberalism to get "the votes" to approve the many heretical docuмents.
The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, the journalistFr Ralph M. Wiltgen, S.V.D. is a must read.
As to contextualize the uncharacteristic rejection of some points of this: in the past few weeks I've become increasingly disturbed by the traditionalist adherence to some form of conspiracy-gnosticism. As if your trad cred relies on what level of gnosis you've attained by acceptance of various cօռspιʀαcιҽs. It's become absurd and entirely vexing.I've noticed this as well. Doctrine-related debates have clearly taken a back seat.
There is a rather strange docuмent circulating the internet that appears to be the docuмent that Paul Williams referred to, assuming it exists at all, and assuming Paul Williams didn't make it up and assuming the image itself is authentic.
Ladislaus, this might be what you were looking for in the National Archives. I have no idea what the provenance of this image is, or where it came from, or anything like that. I do not vouch for its authenticity in any way.
Regardless, the image itself sure is wild:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IPuXHF4g4tM/Wm58nYgMdHI/AAAAAAAAAlg/hcSYrNYFwh4xQZ8ANvmb5y4uRVAvITl1QCLcBGAs/s640/Scan4.jpg)
I've noticed this as well. Doctrine-related debates have clearly taken a back seat.Probably because they've come to a point where they can't proceed because they're not meant to be solved by laymen. There's only so many times you can explain how the problem with the Pope question is not about recognizing and deposing a heretical Pope but the indefectibility of the Church before it becomes stale.
Probably because they've come to a point where they can't proceed because they're not meant to be solved by laymen. There's only so many times you can explain how the problem with the Pope question is not about recognizing and deposing a heretical Pope but the indefectibility of the Church before it becomes stale.
So, rather than discuss devotions or something of spiritual benefit, we discuss the world and therefore fall under its influence once more. Which comes with this gnostic attitude where you have to accept some theory about the particulars of why the world is going to hell, showing how "in the know" you are, when that why is one of the basic, fundamental truths of Catholic teaching.
I've noticed that devotional threads are also some of the least popular on any Catholic forum I've been on. Those kinds of threads save souls, not ones about the particulars of the world. People give MHFM a lot of grief, but their content has at least begun to help me out of this fruitless rut.
Tomorrow starts the month of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. I'm thinking I should take a month away and meditate on His Heart to settle my soul.
Alright, I'll get off my soapbox now.
Yes, you're right. I did misuse the term, if the Novus Ordo is not in fact a new religion. But you are also insisting that he held the Catholic faith whole and entire when his external acts show differently.
As to contextualize the uncharacteristic rejection of some points of this: in the past few weeks I've become increasingly disturbed by the traditionalist adherence to some form of conspiracy-gnosticism. As if your trad cred relies on what level of gnosis you've attained by acceptance of various cօռspιʀαcιҽs. It's become absurd and entirely vexing.
I have a hard time believing that Williams made it up. He gave exact details regarding the type of docuмent, the date, and the declassification date. I doubt someone would go to the trouble of fabricating those dates, especially for a point that wasn’t that important in his text but was just mentioned in passing and which Williams clearly didn’t think was particularly important ... as not being Catholic he didn’t really understand its theological implications.From my understanding, Williams was FBI (or some US govt official) who was investigating Communism (it was the 1950s remember). So, the US govt was keeping tabs on foreign officials who might be "red" (i.e. the modernist satanic Cardinals who threatened Siri). For the US govt to monitor the papal election is quite plausible and logical, for the pope is the head of a major country of influence and the US govt had to make sure that Russian influences did not grow and influence the rest of europe.
From my understanding, Williams was FBI (or some US govt official) who was investigating Communism (it was the 1950s remember). So, the US govt was keeping tabs on foreign officials who might be "red" (i.e. the modernist satanic Cardinals who threatened Siri). For the US govt to monitor the papal election is quite plausible and logical, for the pope is the head of a major country of influence and the US govt had to make sure that Russian influences did not grow and influence the rest of europe.
There would be no reason for Williams to lie about this because a) it wasn't a major point in his book, b) it neither proves/disproves the larger point that Communism was growing beyond Russia and c) his point had nothing to do with catholicism or religion. He has no agenda but is a disinterested third-party...the most reliable of proofs.
in the past few weeks I've become increasingly disturbed by the traditionalist adherence to some form of conspiracy-gnosticism.I'm on the complete opposite spectrum. I'm increasingly disturbed by most Trads I know who *still* reject most cօռspιʀαcιҽs. They won't even entertain the idea they are possible. This is complete brainwashing.
I'm on the complete opposite spectrum. I'm increasingly disturbed by most Trads I know who *still* reject most cօռspιʀαcιҽs. They won't even entertain the idea they are possible. This is complete brainwashing.
I agree, and I don't really believe that DL believes this, that there aren't some very real and significant cօռspιʀαcιҽs in motion. I honestly think he just doesn't like the Siri Theory. That is why I asked for others that he objects to.Nope, you're putting words into my writings. It has nothing to do with the Siri theory in itself. Just the conspiracy stuff in general. It is a fixation among many of you. Yes, there is truth to many of them, but they should not be our primary concern and focus. Miser understood this and 2V understood this. It's almost become a false, second gospel to some.
We saw this with the SSPX and a few SV priests who not only, IMO, misapplied "remote material cooperation" to the jab, but the same ones who thought it was OK to get it absolutely refused to consider the larger context of what the powers that be were trying to accomplish with the jab ... likely because they didn't want to come off LOOKING like "conspiracy kooks"
People are being brainwashed and programmed as part of the conspiracy agenda, and it's very important to expose them in the early stages so that people are not susceptible to being trapped won the road after they had been led down certain paths.Again, I'm not denying there is an agenda. Scripture told us what would happen at the end of time. If Siri is a part of that, then so be it. "For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way." [2 Thessalonians 2:7]
Nope, you're putting words into my writings. It has nothing to do with the Siri theory in itself. Just the conspiracy stuff in general. It is a fixation among many of you. Yes, there is truth to many of them, but they should not be our primary concern and focus. Miser understood this and 2V understood this. It's almost become a false, second gospel to some.
But having this fixation on them, as I have realized, is not overall beneficial to our spiritual well-being.Fixating on anything is not good. In our day, constantly talking about cօռspιʀαcιҽs is like former times, when people constantly talked about the weather, or local news, or town gossip etc. It is THE topic of the day. We are living in a war (a 70+ years "information war" that is morphing into an actual war between the elites and us). cօռspιʀαcιҽs are part of the information war, like it or not.
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet." [Matthew 10:14]
I hope that you're not trying to equate your comments on an internet forum with Apostolic preaching. ;)Absolutely not lol. I wanted to quote Luke 4:24, but I thought that would imply the same so I opted for Matt. 10:14 :laugh1:
Br Peter makes some good points, but also logical flaws. If one believes Siri was validly elected and then forced to resign (an invalid resignation), then per canon law and logic...he's still the pope. ESPECIALLY after it happened twice, in 58 and 63.If he wasn't orthodox, then he would fall from the papacy anyway, which is what Br. Peter, and myself, suggested by his adherence to Paul VI as a valid Pope and celebration of the New Mass. That does prove he was no longer a valid Pope, per the arguments proffered by sedevacantism.
The logical flaws are to look at the circuмstantial evidence (i.e. he said the new mass, he was a coward, he was kinda-modernist, he went along with Paul VI) to retroactively say "this proves he wasn't a true pope".
Just because Siri was validly elected doesn't mean he would've been an orthodox warrior, like St Pope Pius X. So people look at Siri following modernism (like 80% of the cardinals in the 60s and 70s) and somehow expect him to be different. Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII were pretty lukewarm too; they weren't saints and they were certainly valid.
The expectation that a valid election of Siri would make him a Trad-supporting papal warrior is naive, illogical and wrong. This is a big error I see many people make. False expectations.
If he wasn't orthodox, then he would fall from the papacy anyway, which is what Br. Peter, and myself, suggested by his adherence to Paul VI as a valid Pope and celebration of the New Mass. That does prove he was no longer a valid Pope, per the arguments proffered by sedevacantism.The problem with this line of thinking is it's too simplistic.
Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII were many things, even weak, but they were certainly orthodox, they did not deny any dogma of the Catholic faith. The same cannot be said of anyone who openly accepts Vatican II and the "authentic magisterium" of the post-conciliar Antipopes.Arguably, anyone who rejects Pius XII's Holy Week changes (most sedes) are implicitly arguing that such changes are unorthodox. Logically, if Pius XII issued unorthodox rites, then he would also be a heretic and lose office (according to sede logic). If Siri's saying of the new mass = heresy and loss of office. How can Pius XII keep his office after issuing the Holy Week updates?
False expectations are the entire problem I have here with this thesis beyond the fact that he may have been elected in 1958 and/or 1963. This divining what motivated him to stay quiet and accept the Antipopes and false teachings of the Conciliarists, when, as Br. Peter stated, Siri's "big secret" may have been as simple as him misunderstanding that he doesn't need to remain quiet about an invalid election.Br Peter's analysis seems complex only because he assumes that Siri's later actions retroactively affect the 58 and 63 elections. This is similar to protestant errors of logic where they argue that "acceptance of Christ" = salvation but...if person X doesn't live a Christian life, then that's proof that he "didn't really accept Christ". So it's the logical error of "future proves the past". That's not the way the Church works.
If he wasn't orthodox, then he would fall from the papacy anyway ...
You can't say that Siri's acceptance of the new mass in 1970 invalidated his elections in 58 and 63. That's totally illogical. The future does not prove the past. Was he elected in 58 and 63? Yes or no? What happened after is a mystery of grace and salvation and sin but has no effect on the papal election. To argue otherwise is retarded.And I'm not saying that he wasn't elected.
Note: We believe that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope and unlawfully forced to resign - thus invalidating the “elections” of John XXIII and Paul VI. But his failure to oppose the apostasy, stand up for his office and denounce the Antipopes in the decades following those fateful days preclude Catholics from holding that he remained Pope in the decades following the 1958 and 1963 conclaves. Cardinal Siri may have been paralyzed by fear, uncertainty and confusion about his status and what to do about it; nevertheless one cannot recognize that he remained Pope in the years following his elections because, at least in the external forum, he did not stand up for his office or oppose the Antipopes.
nevertheless one cannot recognize that he remained Pope in the years following his elections because, at least in the external forum, he did not stand up for his office or oppose the Antipopes.Their definition for how a papacy can be lost is the recipe for chaos. The fact that they argue he lost his papal office based on the "external forum" is truly a stupendous insight into their lack of a factual reason. So they resort to externalities, circuмstantial evidence and assumptions.
If Cardinal Siri had been elected, what impact would it have if he lost the Papacy as MHFM claim or if he kept it?
Depending on when he actually lost it and what one believes about whether the Cardinals appointed by the Conciliar Anti-popes, and whether you're a sedeprivationist, etc., it would impact which subsequent pontificates his holding of office would have impeded.I just don’t see how the Siri theory can be proven or to who exactly it will be proven. Look at Dr. Chojnowski. He looked at the post 1958 Sister Lucy and saw what many people saw and thought well it’s the 2020’s we can prove with modern technology that this is a different person and he did that. And I just don’t see much of an impact. For the last 60 years anyone only need read the docuмents of Vatican II council and compare them to the docuмents from any prior council to see this docuмent opposes the teaching of the Church. The New Order wasn’t spread secretly it’s blasphemously in the open for all to see, read, hear. Can you refer me to any past hoax that has been subsequently exposed in the mainstream? I just feel like we need to move on from it.
Conclaves were held, while +Siri was still alive, in 1958 (Roncalli), 1963 (Montini), 1978 (Luciani and Wojtyla).
Presumably the "fell from office" crowd could point to the date that +Siri fell from office, since they're so determined that he did and have all kinds of evidence to back it up, right?
I would think it would have been after 1963. So the implication is that Luciani & Wojtyla MAY have been legitimately elected (if you're a privationist).
I don't really believe in this "fell from office" stuff. I hold with St. Robert et al. that a once-legitimate Catholic pope will be prevented by God from falling from office due to heresy. Later, some SVs (like Father Cekada) started to agree and said it's a sign that these men where never popes in the first place. But what about +Siri then? He was clearly not any kind of "manifest heretic" yet by 1958 or 1963.
All this talk about manifest heresy deposing from office is entirely moot if the Siri theory proves to be true ... as I'm convinced that it will.
We need to take the Dimonds with a huge grain of salt. If a Bishop Williamson were elected to the papacy, the Dimonds would continue to hold that the See remained vacant because Bishop Williamson, according to them, is a manifest heretic.
This nonsense comes from the fact that the Dimonds don't understand formal/pertinacious heresy vs. material error ... which I should think they would given how much time they spend on the EENS issue (and it's all related).
I just feel like we need to move on from it.No one is stopping you.
There’s one papal precedent that put’s the Siri coup d’etat into perspective, for the sake of Church history.I read about this anti-Pope Anacletus in The Plot Against the Church and I agree that it is a precedent for the current crisis and the writers must have recognized this as well. We need a St. Bernard of Clairvaux to rally someone, I don’t know about nations. Rallying our remaining Bishops probably would be good. If they have issues with each other’s consecrations, I don’t care if they all conditionally consecrate each other, consecrate Vigano, whoever but get us a Pope.
In 1130, Pope Innocent II’s papacy was hijacked by anti-Pope Anacletus, a Jєω who bought his conclave votes.
He lasted 8 years and was finally ousted with the help of St. Bernard of Clairvaux. The Saint had rallied the Church in several nations to reject Anacletus’s schism.
Likewise, the modern church is a hijacked schism.
Cardinal Siri’s role as Pope Gregory XVII, as tragic as it was, gives us a demarcation point for the Church’s “eclipse” (Our Lady of LaSalette).
Although, 99% of the Catholic world was unaware of what had happened, we realize now, the suffering pope, was hiding in the Holy See, for 31 years.
Considering the Church’s incremental destruction since the day John XXIII appeared St. Peter’s Central balcony, it is a consolation to understand how the Church’s enemies pulled it off, IMHO.
Considering the Church’s incremental destruction since the day John XXIII appeared St. Peter’s Central balcony, it is a consolation to understand how the Church’s enemies pulled it off, IMHO.
I just don’t see how the Siri theory can be proven or to who exactly it will be proven. ... And I just don’t see much of an impact. For the last 60 years anyone only need read the docuмents of Vatican II council and compare them to the docuмents from any prior council to see this docuмent opposes the teaching of the Church. The New Order wasn’t spread secretly it’s blasphemously in the open for all to see, read, hear. Can you refer me to any past hoax that has been subsequently exposed in the mainstream? I just feel like we need to move on from it.
This is precisely the impact. When you have a legitimate Magisterium, it is not permissible for Catholic to simply "compare [it] to the docuмents of any prior council to see [it] opposes the teaching of the Church." Magisterium IS the teaching of the Church, and it's guardian and interpreter. We can't move on until all that R&R garbage is laid to rest and the honor of the Church is restored ... which it will be when it does come out that Siri had been the pope the entire time. Otherwise, we're no different than the Prots, who said exactly the same thing, that the Catholic Church in their day had gone corrupt and had departed from the teaching of the early Church.To whom do we present proof of Cardinal Siri’s election?
There is no moving on from this. It must be definitely resolved in favor of the indefectibility of the Catholic Church and the authority of the Catholic Magisterium, which is being destroyed. Your assertion that Catholic eccleisology is of no practical consequence couldn't be farther from the truth. We have even Trad Catholics losing faith in the Catholic Church.
To whom do we present proof of Cardinal Siri’s election?
Depending on when he actually lost it and what one believes about whether the Cardinals appointed by the Conciliar Anti-popes, and whether you're a sedeprivationist, etc., it would impact which subsequent pontificates his holding of office would have impeded.
Conclaves were held, while +Siri was still alive, in 1958 (Roncalli), 1963 (Montini), 1978 (Luciani and Wojtyla).
Presumably the "fell from office" crowd could point to the date that +Siri fell from office, since they're so determined that he did and have all kinds of evidence to back it up, right?
I would think it would have been after 1963. So the implication is that Luciani & Wojtyla MAY have been legitimately elected (if you're a privationist).
I don't really believe in this "fell from office" stuff. I hold with St. Robert et al. that a once-legitimate Catholic pope will be prevented by God from falling from office due to heresy. Later, some SVs (like Father Cekada) started to agree and said it's a sign that these men where never popes in the first place. But what about +Siri then? He was clearly not any kind of "manifest heretic" yet by 1958 or 1963.
All this talk about manifest heresy deposing from office is entirely moot if the Siri theory proves to be true ... as I'm convinced that it will.
We need to take the Dimonds with a huge grain of salt. If a Bishop Williamson were elected to the papacy, the Dimonds would continue to hold that the See remained vacant because Bishop Williamson, according to them, is a manifest heretic.
This nonsense comes from the fact that the Dimonds don't understand formal/pertinacious heresy vs. material error ... which I should think they would given how much time they spend on the EENS issue (and it's all related).
The Church is a perfect society and hence perfectly capable of acting.What I mean by "undone and incapable of acting," is that Catholic prelates would be replaced with freemasons, crypto jews, and other varieties of apostates and infidels. In which case it would not be the Church acting (or omitting to act) through these men, but rather imposters.
Probably because they've come to a point where they can't proceed because they're not meant to be solved by laymen. There's only so many times you can explain how the problem with the Pope question is not about recognizing and deposing a heretical Pope but the indefectibility of the Church before it becomes stale.Absolutely. This problem is beyond "reason enlightened by faith." It is going to take legitimate authority to solve.
I'm on the complete opposite spectrum. I'm increasingly disturbed by most Trads I know who *still* reject most cօռspιʀαcιҽs. They won't even entertain the idea they are possible. This is complete brainwashing.Good points.
We just lived through 1.5 years of the Covid hoax, one of the most pre-planned, globally organized, and internationally funded hoaxes in human history, where 70% of population was lied to, coerced, forced and manipulated to take an experimental jab. Every level of society was involved to perpetrate this mass psychotic brainwashing -
1. govts at all levels (global, national, state, city....executive, legislative, judicial branches),
2. media at all levels,
3. major corporations at all levels (Food, manufacturing, insurance, financial, etc etc,
4. non-profit orgs at all levels,
5. Healthcare businesses at all levels,
6. Every major "church" organization (catholic, protestant, Jєωιѕн, etc)
7. Every major sport organization in the world
To put it another way, looking at the above list...Is there ANY area of society that isn't controlled by satan and his freemasonic minions? Covid pulled the curtain back and let us look our enemies right in the eye (at least for those who WANT to see reality). If they could pull off Covid...what is their limit? How could any conspiracy be off the table, at least as a possibility?
We shouldn't accept any story at face value; we should research all things, especially cօռspιʀαcιҽs. But at this point in history, facing the organized and globally-controlling enemy of our day, NO conspiracy can be brushed aside without research. How can anyone who is honest put limits on what these evil men are capable of? If God was not in charge, and if He was not putting limits on the extent to which satan could control/tempt us to despair, we can say, as did King David:
2 Have mercy on me, O God, for man hath trodden me under foot; all the day long he hath afflicted me fighting against me.
3 My enemies have trodden on me all the day long; for they are many that make war against me.
4 From the height of the day I shall fear: but I will trust in thee.
5 In God I will praise my words, in God I have put my trust: I will not fear what flesh can do against me. (Ps 55)
There are cօռspιʀαcιҽs, there always have been, even at the time of Our Lord. But having this fixation on them, as I have realized, is not overall beneficial to our spiritual well-being.I find the overarching knowledge of the cօռspιʀαcιҽs, and their descriptions given by Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and Catholic Bishops and Priests, to be very helpful in my spiritual life.
I find the overarching knowledge of the cօռspιʀαcιҽs, and their descriptions given by Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and Catholic Bishops and Priests, to be very helpful in my spiritual life.Good point Simeon. We who love the Truth also love the truth.
What I think is pure poison, and spiritually harmful, is the alt media propaganda, sensationalism, and "analysis." That's where you are going to get the pure gnosticism you alluded to earlier. The alt media is far worse than CNN, because it has great power to deceive even the elect.
THIS^^^. There's no need to malign the Church, her indefectibility, and the protection of the Holy Spirit over the true Catholic Church. It really is this simple. We have a bunch of Catholics here who think it's OK to say that the Catholic Church became a whore ... rather than identify the real culprits, illegitimate enemy infiltrators..
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
Within the useful time established by law or, legal provision lacking, as determined by the Ordinary, fails to take possession of the office;
Accepts another ecclesiastical office incompatible with the prior, and has obtained peaceful possession of [the other office]
Good point Simeon. We who love the Truth also love the truth."In the time we have remaining to us......"
God's Word speaks of the "mystery of iniquity" and warns us of the "synagog of satan" and "those who say they are Jєωs and are not" (because they actually worhip satan). The days of easily doing research on the net are gone, but those of us who know who the evil-doers are and what motivates them are duty-bound to make the truth known to others, in the time we have remaining to us.
"In the time we have remaining to us......"It's not a feeling, it's the facts that the puppetmasters over Biden are:
Do you share my sense of impending doom, Cera?
It's not a feeling, it's the facts that the puppetmasters over Biden are:So very sorry to hear about your back pain. May God relieve you very soon!
1. trying to foment WW3
2. used the Afghanistan withdrawal to bring terrorists into the US, and to signal US weakness to our enemies
3.. are using the open border to bring in more terrorists, drugs and sex-trafficking.
4. are using Soros-funded D.A.s to release, or never charge, violent criminals
5. have made us dependent on the CCP for medicines
6. have destroyed the energy independance we had under Trump
7. are killing people with an gene "therapy" experiment
8. are using their control of the media so most people beleive the lies and deny the truth
9. are using their control of search engines to keep people believing their lies
10. Russia realizes the US is the head of the evil globalist cabal and numerous generals and others in the Kremlin have made threats to destroy both coasts of the US (which are backed up by weapons against which we have no defense).
11. Are collapsing the economy.
12. Are signaling that they plan to release another gain-of-function bio-warfare weapon agains the population.
13. Are criminalizing -- as a terrorist threat -- any criticism of CRT, LGBTQ, the 2020 election, the sɛҳuąƖization of young children in public school.
and much more.
All of this, I pray, will make us stronger Catholics.
Sorry for the spelling but I have severe back pain and am waiting for an MRI (for which there is no contrast to make the image clearer, because China.)
So very sorry to hear about your back pain. May God relieve you very soon!Yes Simeon, you nailed it. The True Church was the moral compass of the world and now the post V2 church has destroyed it.
Your list makes me want to grab the Brioschi bottle! I think it might be succinctly reformatted to consist of one, and one bullet point alone: Vatican II.
Doesn't that encompass it all?
Lord Jesus, save us! We perish!!
Yes Simeon, you nailed it. The True Church was the moral compass of the world and now the post V2 church has destroyed it.