From and to:  The Man Who was Thursday.

An excellent short description of the election of Innocent II.

But with some further highlighting -

The position of St. Bernhard and St. Norber that Innocent was the valid pope is based on St. Bernhards testimony that:

1. The life and character of Innocent II are above attack (reproach)

2. Innocents motives are purer/the election was more regular in form/earlier in time

3. The merit and dignity of the electors of Innocent II are of greater merit.

Now:  #1 life and character beyond reproach - no problem
         #2 purer in motive - ok, nore regular?? - earlier in time??
         #3 the merit and dignity of the electors are also beyond approach, etc.

Now:  More regular:  On the contrary - Pope Honorius made an agreement that only eight of the eligible Cardinals would elect the new Pope, out of 37 total, or there abouts in all, and only 8 of 29 present in Rome. This was uncanonical and a violation of the laws of the Church. What if:  Pope Benedict made an secret agreement with eight Cardinals, that when he dies they, the eight, would elect the new pope, eight of his friend modernist Cardinals.  Would that be accepted by the Church or would it be a contested election that was uncanonical? That, in my opinion would never fly it would be declared null and illicit.

Earlier in time: Has no bearing or stand in Church law if it was an illicti election.

The merit and dignity of the electors was beyond reproach: This also has no bearing on the election of a Pope.  Imagine the can of worms if we judged every election based on the merits and dignity of the Cardinals, especially in the last four or five elections.

What is missing again is that it was known by the "good" Cardinals whose "merit and dignity" were irreproachable, that Cardinal Pierleoni and many of the other Curia were secret Jєωs.  I'm not sure at the time later the canons of the 29 Councils of Toledo forbade ever for a Jєω to be elevated beyond a simple priest, who was a convert or whose family had converted previously from Judaism.  Now, the canons of the Councils of Toledo are still in force today, however, we have now Cardinals, for instance Cardinal Bea, and others, who were and are converted Jєωs.  Brings up some serious questions.

So, I have no problem with Innocent II being the legitimate Pope - but the circuмstances are unique in Church history whereby an election was determined not by the canonical laws of the Church but by the "merits" of the eligible candidates.  Unprecedented.  

Which brings us all up to date:  Considering the above history, the canons of the Councils of Toledo, etc, the actions and inactions of at least Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI - we can see evidence or precedent now for the excommunication of those Popes in the future. Pope Honorius I was excommunicated, not for anything he did or taught, but rather for "not" dealing with a particular heresy then present in the Church, for what he did not do.  Apply these same standards to today's Popes. I think we will be, maybe, surprised at what happens in the future as pertains to the condemnation of the last few Popes and Vatican II.

From what I've read Anacletus II's parents converted from Judaism but it was more than likely a superficial conversion. It was said that Anacletus was ransacking churches and melting down chalices but nobody is sure whether these claims are true. When Innocent II reclaimed the papacy one of the bishops who supported Innocent II caim to him on his knees bearing a cup and asking forgiveness and I guess innocent II walked up and kicked the cup down the aisle.

Innocent also said that all the bishops would be forgiven if they recognized him but he renigged and excommunicated them all. (the ones that supported anacletus).

I think we should treat Bishop Fellay along these lines.

Quote from: SaintBasil

Quote from: Thursday

Alinsky met with Pius XII but it was with a group, he just went along with the rest of the group of "pius American catholics". Apparently they produced their rosaries to be blessed by the Pope and Alinsky having now Rosary produced his apartment key.

That group was Reformer revolutionaries aka Marxist Communists...
No strangers to or at the Vatican.

Ok what were their names? If you say something like Pius XII met with some marxist revolutionaries you do have to support your claim with some evidence.

The Video from Catholic TV discusses all of this, I would request that you watch it.
Theres no conspiracy involved.

Saul Alinsky was well supported by the Catholic Church at the time in Chicago and he had a popular following at the Vatican.

Causes one to wonder though, doesnt it?  Why would the Catholic Church support a Marxist Radical Revolutionary Communist Jєω?
Alinsky pays homage to Lucifer in his book-For Radicals as well, Im sure thats just harmless though, just like Roscoe claims.

"Father Farrell was not easily deterred.
 Once he got seed money, a promise of fifty thousand dollars contingent on his raising the other money he needed, from his friend Monsignor Cooke at Catholic Charities, he called a meeting.
A year after Cardinal Meyer blessed OSC’s start at Monsignor Patrick Gleeson’s Christ the King rectory, Father Martin Farrell was hosting in his rectory a group including Dr. Blakeley and his co-minister Dr. Charles Leber of the First Presbyterian Church in Woodlawn. They launched a new community organization, the Temporary Woodlawn Organization.

Archdiocesan support for this enterprise was as crucial as recruiting Saul Alinsky.

They managed both. “It was a miraculous thing,” Jack says. “I was alone with the cardinal and Saul Alinsky. The cardinal made a commitment for $150,000 for three years, $50,000 a year. I’ll never forget the scene.
It was something that impressed me very, very much. They didn’t sign any contract. The cardinal had confidence in Saul.
Saul always prided himself that a handshake was his contract. That was his bond. That was his word. He would fulfill what he had promised.”

“I was standing there quietly when they shook hands,” Jack recalls. The five foot eleven Saul Alinsky looked up at the six foot six cardinal. “Now, Your Eminence,” Alinsky said, “I hope you realize there will be conflict and controversy when we do this work. We’ll have to take on the Daley machine which is just ripping this neighborhood apart, and some other bureaucracies.”

As Jack remembers the seminal meeting, the cardinal replied with the same gentle determination that served him unwaveringly at the Vatican Council in Rome five years later. “Mr. Alinsky, if the work is worthwhile, it doesn’t make any difference to me whether there is conflict or controversy. Even though you and I don’t share the same faith, Mr. Alinsky, there is nothing more controversial than a Man hanging on a cross.”

Thus was the stage readied for a second engagement between the Alinsky/Churches coalition and the University of Chicago. Woodlawn bordered the university.
Nicholas von Hoffman was aware that the university was already buying up land in Woodlawn for what officials called the new South Campus project, another barrier reef to separate the scholastic community from the ghetto to the south. Muggings and robberies were becoming more common on the Midway, the grassy moat between the university and the Woodlawn neighborhood. From the university’s point of view, a barrier was absolutely necessary.
From von Hoffman’s point of view, any gain for the university would be at the expense of the poor to the south who stood to lose some of their few amenities if the university preempted the grassy area of the Midway used as a park by the people of Woodlawn, as well as considerable housing stock.'
http://archives.nd.edu/findaids/html/etext/alley013.htm

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first
radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know
where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first
radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so
effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

-Saul Alinsky dedicates his book, “Rules for Radicals” to Lucifer.







President Barack Obama’s speech at Notre Dame has to be understood in the context of his hiring and training by Jerry Kellman, an apostle of Saul Alinsky at the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF). Kellman “led a group, the Calumet Community Religious Conference, that had been created by several local Catholic churches,” noted National Review writer Byron York. Tyson had noted that Saul Alinsky, an organizer and socialist, originally had the support of Catholic Bishop Bernard J. Sheil and was facilitated in the San Antonio, Texas, area by the Catholic Diocese there.

It became a center for support for Liberation Theology and opposition to the Reagan policy in Central America. A docuмentary, “The Democratic Promise: Saul Alinsky and His Legacy,” noted that, “Alinsky envisioned an ‘organization of organizations,’ comprised of all sectors of the community — youth committees, small businesses, labor
unions, and, most influential of all, the Catholic Church.” The Citizen’s Handbook notes that, “Much of IAF organizing occurs through Christian churches particularly the Catholic church.”

Over the last 10 years, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD)
of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has given millions of Catholic-donated
dollars to the Industrial Areas Foundation and the Saul Alinsky-style ACORN
(Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). ACORN, which has
reportedly received more than $53 million in federal funds,