Author Topic: The DESTROYER as prophesied by St.Francis of Assisi (Read 6821 times)

Incredulous · « **Reply #15 on:** May 04, 2016, 08:07:18 AM »

You're correct. The whole of Catholic culture has been corrupted.

For those who want to be included in the true remnant, the "operating priniciple" is, stay away from the Novus ordo missae.

Even if an "angel of light" told you it's okay... just stay away.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** May 04, 2016, 08:38:55 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous

I do believe Cardinal Siri was pope Gregory XVII. He accepted the papacy and took a name.
...
Cardinal Siri's intimidation invalidated the 1958 Conclave, according to 1917 Canon Law.

I agree. St. Francis' prophecy most likely refers to this incident and to John XXIII.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #17 on:** May 04, 2016, 08:40:12 AM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Pax Vobis
I too believe in the cardinal siri thesis.

Are you going to the meeting in Corpus Christi this month for those who believe in the Siri Thesis where they can receive the sacraments from true priests in union with the hidden Pope Gregory XVIII?

I don't believe that a Gregory XVIII exists. But I do believe that Siri was elected and forced to step down under duress.

Matthew · « **Reply #18 on:** May 04, 2016, 08:50:55 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Pax Vobis
I too believe in the cardinal siri thesis.

Are you going to the meeting in Corpus Christi this month for those who believe in the Siri Thesis where they can receive the sacraments from true priests in union with the hidden Pope Gregory XVIII?

I don't believe that a Gregory XVIII exists. But I do believe that Siri was elected and forced to step down under duress.

I don't believe the Siri thesis because I haven't met more than 2 Catholics who gave *any* credence to the thesis.

David Hobson, about 100 sock-puppet accounts for David Hobson,
...and Ladislaus.

Sorry, that thesis belongs in the toilet. A very dirty toilet.

If something was TRUE, a bunch more truth-seekers would have ended up there. And there are certainly a lot more than TWO truth seekers alive today.

I know, "remnant". But we're not at that stage yet. If the truth were THAT obscured in 2016, the Antichrist would be reigning, the end of the world would be at hand and the Mass wouldn't be available anymore.

Sorry, guy.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #19 on:** May 04, 2016, 09:00:32 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Pax Vobis
I too believe in the cardinal siri thesis.

Are you going to the meeting in Corpus Christi this month for those who believe in the Siri Thesis where they can receive the sacraments from true priests in union with the hidden Pope Gregory XVIII?

I don't believe that a Gregory XVIII exists. But I do believe that Siri was elected and forced to step down under duress.

I don't believe the Siri thesis because I haven't met more than 2 Catholics who gave *any* credence to the thesis.

David Hobson, about 100 sock-puppet accounts for David Hobson,
...and Ladislaus.

There are at least 3 people on THIS THREAD alone who believe that Siri was elected. I have met LOTS of such people. There's plenty of credible, albeit circuмstantial, evidence for this thesis. So you have no real theological arguments against the theory ... just ad hominems. More and more I sense that your theological positions are all emotion-based.

Matthew · « **Reply #20 on:** May 04, 2016, 09:15:05 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

There are at least 3 people on THIS THREAD alone who believe that Siri was elected. I have met LOTS of such people. There's plenty of credible, albeit circuмstantial, evidence for this thesis. So you have no real theological arguments against the theory ... just ad hominems. More and more I sense that your theological positions are all emotion-based.

First of all, you're not revealing anything, Sherlock, because I just admitted in my post (above) that my aversion to the Siri thesis was a gut feeling. I gave my motivation for my Siri Thesis dismissal for the whole world to see.

Sorry, but all my other positions (for which I delineate my reasoning) are not just emotion. Nice ad-hominem though. You know, two wrongs doesn't make a right.

A whole 3 people...out of 5,070 CathInfo members over the past 10 years.

That's a kooky, fringe position. I just don't buy it.

By the way, whatever it is that has kept -- or keeps - me sane shouldn't be dismissed so lightly, by you or anyone else, Ladislaus. I have been a Traditional Catholic for 39 years and counting. I still haven't given up, given in, gone off the deep end, or lost it. That's like being an active duty soldier for 39 years. If I'm still alive, I gotta be doing something right!

Maybe it's an ability to trust, an ability to trust in God, a BS detector, maybe it's an ability to be pragmatic, maybe it's an ability to leave some issues mysterious and un-resolved, maybe it's an emotional gut rejection of all things fringe, or some combination of these things. I don't know. But I'm staying sane and stable, and that isn't a small accomplishment.

Whatever I'm doing right, I'd be foolish to change. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

And my soldier analogy is pretty appropriate. Any veteran with 39 years of active-duty experience will certainly have "seen some s***". And so have I. I've been through a ton, enough to write a book or two. I've experienced friends getting blown up (apostatizing). And here I am, keeping the Faith. Tomorrow my family and I will be going to Mass (Ascension Thursday), and a couple days later we'll be going to Sunday Mass, during which my #3 will receive First Communion and we'll have a May Crowning.

I still haven't given up. Still not discouraged. Still not a home aloner. I'm even faithful to my Western (Roman Rite) heritage! It's God's grace of course, but God's grace has taken the form of that list of things I made above (trust in God, ability to not pursue every point to the Nth degree, etc.)

---

The Siri thesis is so "whack" (to use a modern expression) that it's only worthy of an ad-hominem dismissal. I have rational reasons to dismiss it as well (don't kid yourself) but the thesis is so stupid, it's not worthy.

For example, the fact that Cardinal Siri was as Novus Ordo as any of them. What's the point of this secret election/rejection/whatever if there's no point to it all? It's not like he was a Traditional good guy or something. And it's been what, 50 years? The thesis is going nowhere fast.

Nishant · « **Reply #21 on:** May 04, 2016, 09:36:46 AM »

Edit: With regard to the OP, yes, there will be an Anti-Pope uncanonically elected, as St. Francis says. But an Anti-Pope in Catholic theology always refers to a false claimant contesting the election of a true Pope, never to an uncontested candidate duly elected and accepted. In this sense, there have been around 30-40 Anti-Popes in the history of the Church who were not canonically elected but opposed by the true Pope. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines, AntiPope: "A false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected. At various times in the history of the Church illegal pretenders to the Papal Chair have arisen, and frequently exercised pontifical functions in defiance of the true occupant."

For a short and simple refutation of sedevacantist-lite theories like the "Siri thesis", I recommend any interested person seriously peruse the article written by Fr. Boulet on the subject of the Cardinal Siri thesis. There are at least three doctrinal refutations of the idea, (1) First, the doctrine that universal acceptance of a Pope is, in itself, a sign and infallible effect of a valid election; (2) Second, the doctrine that the Church is a visible society, the "city set on a hill that cannot be hid" in which continuous, uninterrupted transmission of authority from St. Peter and the Apostles must be evident and incontrovertible, for the mark of Apostolicity is the primary means by which the true Church is known; (3) Third, that the law itself tells us that a Cardinal "in pectore" by a Pope who did not make him publicly known before his death has no title to function as one. Consequently, the "Siri thesis" culminates in a dead end.

http://fsspx.com/Communicantes/Dec2004/Is_That_Chair_Vacant.htm

Quote

"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 ... The objective criterion required by Catholic theology for recognizing who is a true pope is the recognition of the one elected by the Cardinals, Bishops and by the Whole Church. In the Sedevacantist mind, such criterion cannot any longer be objective, but will necessarily make appeal to a fundamentally subjective source, even if an effort is made to make it appear as objective. "

Ladislaus · « **Reply #22 on:** May 04, 2016, 09:40:34 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

The Siri thesis is so "whack" (to use a modern expression) that it's only worthy of an ad-hominem dismissal. I have rational reasons to dismiss it as well (don't kid yourself) but the thesis is so stupid, it's not worthy.

I disagree.

Quote from: Matthew

For example, the fact that Cardinal Siri was as Novus Ordo as any of them. What's the point of this secret election/rejection/whatever if there's no point to it all? It's not like he was a Traditional good guy or something. And it's been what, 50 years? The thesis is going nowhere fast.

What path he went down after the conclave has little or no relevance to what actually happened at the conclave. Obviously, had he actively assumed the papacy, he would have received the graces of state and the protection of the Holy Spirit. And there's no indication that Siri was a flaming modernist/heretic like many of the alternatives we've had since then. He has openly criticized Vatican II. He was considered staunchly orthodox and anti-modernist at the time he would have been elected, and there's no indication that he would have changed and suddenly become a modernist after his election. So, again, nothing but an emotional "argument".

That kind of broad-brush attack of something being "whack" is the same tactic used against other positions ... regarding 9/11, the h0Ɩ0cαųst, geocentrism, etc. that shield people from even investigating the truth about these matters. At least as many Traditional Catholics who might consider the Siri thesis to be "whack" would consider YOU to be whack regarding your views about geocentrism or the holocause or 9/11.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #23 on:** May 04, 2016, 09:46:41 AM »

Ah, yes, again with the "Universal Acceptance" ... without any reference to the indefectibility of the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline. As to whether there has been "Universal Acceptance", that can be disputed. I have seen texts from pre Vatican II theologians that papal legitimacy derives from legitimate election + universal acceptance, that universal acceptance cannot convalidate an illegitimate pope as it were. In addition, the entire Universal Acceptance thesis rests upon the notion that the Universal Church cannot accept a false rule of faith. But 95% of Novus Ordo Catholics, by their own polls, do NOT accept the popes as rules of faith. In addition, Traditional Catholics have REJECTED the V2 papal claimaints as rules of faith, rejecting their Magisterium almost wholesale. So paying lip-service to a material occupancy of the See while rejecting the pope's Magisterium constitutes "Universal Acceptance"? Hardly. This "Universal Acceptance" thesis is flawed to the core. Again, if the vast-majority-Arian "Church" of long ago had elected an Arian pope and accepted him, would that pope have been legitimate due to "Universal Acceptance"? I would venture to say that 80-90% of the Novus Ordo Catholics out there don't have the Catholic faith anymore ... so what exactly does their "Universal Acceptance" actually mean?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #24 on:** May 04, 2016, 09:54:04 AM »

Quote

Cardinal Billot refers to the principle of convalidation of a papal election, meaning that despite any defects or doubtfulness regarding his election, the pope-elect is Pope if the whole Church recognizes him as such. So whether Cardinal Siri was elected or not, it was John XXIII who was recognised as Pope by the Church.

I'm not an expert on this but in the case of the Siri thesis, can't we distinguish between the governmental aspect of the papacy and the spiritual aspect? John XXIII was certainly the pope, from a temporal/govt aspect. But spiritually speaking, Siri would've had claim to the papal graces of state.

This type of thing is alluded to when Benedict stepped down. Some say he only retired from the govt side of the papacy but is still the spiritual pope. I have no idea, but it sounds like it is theologically possible.

Finally, just because Siri was the pope doesn't mean that that crazy group can elect his successor. If Siri was truly pope, then that means he died before JPII died, meaning that Benedict was a valid successor.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #25 on:** May 04, 2016, 10:00:21 AM »

Quote

I would venture to say that 80-90% of the Novus Ordo Catholics out there don't have the Catholic faith anymore ... so what exactly does their "Universal Acceptance" actually mean?

Great point.

There's lots of evidence for Siri...secular newspaper reports, white smoke, off-the-record interviews, etc. The FBI was investigating many of the cardinals at the time for involvement in communism and has evidence of conclave irregularities.

TheRealMcCoy · « **Reply #26 on:** May 04, 2016, 10:03:02 AM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Pax Vobis
I too believe in the cardinal siri thesis.

Are you going to the meeting in Corpus Christi this month for those who believe in the Siri Thesis where they can receive the sacraments from true priests in union with the hidden Pope Gregory XVIII?

Where can one find information about this meeting?

Nishant · « **Reply #27 on:** May 04, 2016, 10:15:41 AM »

Quote

Ah, yes, again with the "Universal Acceptance" ... without any reference to the indefectibility of the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline. As to whether there has been "Universal Acceptance", that can be disputed.

Disputed by whom? Rev. Connell wrote in the AER in 1965, "The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical – not divine – faith, based on the authority of the infallible Church." Of course, this derives from the indefectibility of the Magisterium, as both Van Noort and Rev. Connell clearly say. With regard to the indefectibility of Universal discipline, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, the whole Church teaching, proves also that the New Mass cannot be intrinsically evil, as we have discussed elsewhere. Those who say otherwise have never seriously considered the question, quite a few informed traditional priests will tell you this if you ask them in private personally for yourself.

Quote

I have seen texts from pre Vatican II theologians that papal legitimacy derives from legitimate election + universal acceptance, that universal acceptance cannot convalidate an illegitimate pope as it were.

This is incorrect, please cite one for us if you think otherwise. The universal acceptance is the proof of legitimate election, otherwise we are trapped in a vicious cycle in which we can never arrive at infallible certitude. Wernz Vidal clearly say universal acceptance "is the sign and infallible effect of a valid election"

Quote

if the vast-majority-Arian "Church" of long ago had elected an Arian pope

I'm curious, what part of God will "never permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not really and lawfully such" (Billot) is unclear. The Arian heretics had no authority to elect anyone anyway and God would never have allowed anyone they elected to have received universal acceptance. Again, Rev. Connell, in 1965, clearly says the universal acceptance condition is fulfilled in the concrete. We have here both a certain principle and its clear application. This poses insuperable difficulties for the Siri thesis and all other sedevacantist theories.

Van Noort says, “So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter” and the same, as Rev. Connell explains, applies to Pope Paul VI in 1965. To hope for restoration from a Siri successor, frankly, smacks of desperation only slightly higher than Pope Michael-style conclavism.

Franciscan Solitary · « **Reply #28 on:** May 04, 2016, 01:04:22 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Pax Vobis
I too believe in the cardinal siri thesis.

Are you going to the meeting in Corpus Christi this month for those who believe in the Siri Thesis where they can receive the sacraments from true priests in union with the hidden Pope Gregory XVIII?

I don't believe that a Gregory XVIII exists. But I do believe that Siri was elected and forced to step down under duress.

I don't believe the Siri thesis because I haven't met more than 2 Catholics who gave *any* credence to the thesis.

David Hobson, about 100 sock-puppet accounts for David Hobson,
...and Ladislaus.

Sorry, that thesis belongs in the toilet. A very dirty toilet.

If something was TRUE, a bunch more truth-seekers would have ended up there. And there are certainly a lot more than TWO truth seekers alive today.

I know, "remnant". But we're not at that stage yet. If the truth were THAT obscured in 2016, the Antichrist would be reigning, the end of the world would be at hand and the Mass wouldn't be available anymore.

Sorry, guy.

Mr. Matthew and fellow bloggers:

Here we touch on the true nub of the matter. The Holy Cross does not mandate boundless complacency and self-serving comfort but rather a dramatic and epic view of reality in which good and evil battle it out to the bitter end like two scorpions in a bottle. Truth is not complacent or overly comfortable and that is the significance of having to take up one's Cross and suffer for God, King and Country. This is also the essential error of Bishop Fellay and his neo-SSPX. Why carry one's Cross when there's no need to do so?

Meanwhile, back in the more painful real world on planet earth, the Antichrist is very much reigning in the form of Barack Hussein Obama, whose mother was in fact a Jewess as the prophecies have foretold. The end of the world has been heavily crashing down on our heads ever since the First World War and Russian Bolshevik Revolution and the Roman Mass is certainly not available anymore in any practical or real sense.

Just because some dilettantes and rich folk can enjoy the smells and bells is a far cry from anything resembling a real practical availability of the divine liturgy at the present time. We should not be deceived by the mere superficial appearances of things. Roman Catholicism is being violently suppressed by the existing anti-Christ Neo-Liberal Marxist governments or the moon is made of green cheese and pigs can fly. Not so!

Sorry, Mr. Matthew, but reality is not nearly so easy and convenient as you suppose. The Cross is the true representation of the way things are and in the real world good and evil fight it out until the earth is scorched and the last trump is blown when we are all practically deafened by the deafening blasts. Catholic manhood is very much necessary and only the ladies have the luxury of being ladies. We men must have much harder tasks than theirs assigned to us.

Please pardon my blunt language, but there are damn few genuine truth seekers left on earth at the present absolutely bleak and darkest pitch black time. If the actual little flock of Roman Catholics still left on earth isn't a "remnant", then what might be? The global climate collapses, the world economy is basically dead as a doornail, the Neo-Liberal Marxist governments are tyrannical far beyond the nightmares of Orwell's 1984 and if Obama isn't the Anti-Christ (and Pope Bergoglio the False Prophet of the Apocalypse) this Franciscan will eat his sandal. We are there, Mr. Matthew, this is it and the Roman Catholic Remnant of prophecy is us. The Book of Revelation has not deceived us.

True religion is above politics and only the one true Roman Catholic religion is going to resurrect Christendom from the dead dead condition to which the Roman Catholics have been martyred. Even before Vatican Two the Reds were massacring the Catholics in our scores of millions and the secret police continue to savagely persecute the Catholics to the best of their considerable abilities. Contemporary history is simply not the breezy idyll that you presume. Not at all.

This is the time for Catholics to pray: "Lord, come quickly!" The last thing Our Lord is expecting from us is for us to whistle through the graveyard and pretend that everything is "normal". Everything is not normal. Everything is utterly and absolutely unprecedented and horrific. This is already the time for Catholic men to meet Our Lord in the air, form ranks, take our marching orders, go forth and conquer. Presidents-to-be Trump and Le Pen are expecting nothing less than that from us.

Maranatha.

Alexandria · « **Reply #29 on:** May 04, 2016, 01:23:56 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Ah, yes, again with the "Universal Acceptance" ... without any reference to the indefectibility of the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline. As to whether there has been "Universal Acceptance", that can be disputed. I have seen texts from pre Vatican II theologians that papal legitimacy derives from legitimate election + universal acceptance, that universal acceptance cannot convalidate an illegitimate pope as it were. In addition, the entire Universal Acceptance thesis rests upon the notion that the Universal Church cannot accept a false rule of faith. But 95% of Novus Ordo Catholics, by their own polls, do NOT accept the popes as rules of faith. In addition, Traditional Catholics have REJECTED the V2 papal claimaints as rules of faith, rejecting their Magisterium almost wholesale. So paying lip-service to a material occupancy of the See while rejecting the pope's Magisterium constitutes "Universal Acceptance"? Hardly. This "Universal Acceptance" thesis is flawed to the core. Again, if the vast-majority-Arian "Church" of long ago had elected an Arian pope and accepted him, would that pope have been legitimate due to "Universal Acceptance"? I would venture to say that 80-90% of the Novus Ordo Catholics out there don't have the Catholic faith anymore ... so what exactly does their "Universal Acceptance" actually mean?

The book I just finished reading goes into that - it doesn't mean an unanimous acceptance but a moral majority.

However, I don't know if that proves much, if anything, today. The majority of the Catholics in the novus ordo Church don't even know the faith. Their acceptance of any post-VII pope means nothing. The same with the priests, bishops and cardinals all infected with modernism. Of course they would accept one of their own.