It is currently Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:40 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 396 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 Siri's "election"/acceptance of popes/Paul VI 
Author Message

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Articles describing the machinations of the various parties were appearing in news media repeatedly, right from October '62. The battle was not a secret on any level, even if it was not adverted to in most parishes in the USA.


I think this is an important point. We Catholics appeared to be unaware of the struggle that the whole world was taking notice of...I have heard a few comments (from friends who were there in the mid-to late 60's) that there were even non-Catholics who were actually quite frightened by what was happening to the Church. They may have disagreed with Her, but She was a "constant"...when they saw this "constant" begin to be significantly affected by the liberal current they took notice...and were quite uneasy about it.

Read TIME magazine's coverage of Vatican II...the writers certainly noticed the battle being fought...it was anything but peaceful.


Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:39 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Reply to John.
John Lane wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
But I guess we are not to be included in your "...peaceful and universal acceptance...".


Well, Ken, the whole point about universality or, to use an equivalent term, unanimity,


Those two words are NOT equivalent! Now, it seems, we are talking not facts, but semantics!

Quote:
is that it only takes some part of the whole to be removed, and the unanimity no longer exists. (I repeat, this is a question of moral unanimity, not absolute, but the point stands).

Please stop and think about your position. In relation to Roncalli, you cite your mother's misgivings; in relation to the open warfare going on between the orthodox party and the liberals at Vatican II, you point out that you and other laymen were generally unaware of it. One was a private comment which passed and was no more;


The point, the simple point, I was TRYING to make is that it is logical that if someone as unlearned and "little" as my Mother and her friends questioned Roncalli's election, then surely, there were more powerful and knowledgeable people intimately involved in the question who ALSO questioned it. I also pointed out that it was the normal thing for the clerics of the time to avoid mentioning anything to the laity that might "scandalize" them. Thus, we would have never known for sure what happened.

And I will make an attempt to make a further point: what sources of information are you using to support your obviously absolute certainty that Roncalli was "...peacefully and universally accepted..."? On what has been published that you have read? Sorry. That is not good enough. It leaves too much out, and there is too much hindsight involved.

Quote:
the other was the greatest crisis in the history of the Church as it became manifest to all.


Over some definable period of time. I insist that Montini WAS most certainly "...peacefully and universally accepted..." at his election, from all published accounts that I read at the time.

Quote:
Articles describing the machinations of the various parties were appearing in news media repeatedly, right from October '62.


And many of the same types of articles appeared in 1958 also, although most are in Italian. We have copies of many of those in our files.

Quote:
The battle was not a secret on any level,


It was at the parish level at first, however, at the higher levels, neither was it in 1958.

Quote:
even if it was not adverted to in most parishes in the USA.


THAT part at least, you have correct.

Quote:
(Paul VI)...immediately declared his intention to continue John XXIII's agenda, in precisely the same manner that Wojtyla immediately declared his intention to continue Monitini's agenda in 1978, and as Ratzinger did when he was elected.


Now isn't that interesting? Sounds to me as though they are all the same "Precursor of Anti-Christ", doesn't it?

Quote:
The reaction of orthodox men each time was similar - I'll keep the Faith, even if it means disobeying "the pope."


In Montini's time, there were VERY few who did this. The numbers grew as things got worse, but in Montini's time, there were very, very few. In fact, the only one I remember was Fr. Wathen...and most of us thought he was nuts.

Look!! I must make this quite clear to you: I LIVED THROUGH IT! It caused me possibly the worst possible emotional and spiritual stress I have ever suffered. I despaired. I felt crucified! I wanted to die! And the awfulness never stopped! Just to think about it, even now, makes me want to break down in tears! YOU WERE NOT THERE, SO HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY, POSSIBLY JUDGE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? YOU ESSENTIALLY KNOW NOTHING OF WHAT IT WAS LIKE, NOR WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED EXCEPT WHAT YOU HAVE READ, THIRTY YEARS AFTER THE FACT! YOU SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! IT WAS PURE HELL! AND WE DID NOT BELIEVE IT WAS THE FAULT OF "THE POPE", BUT OF DISOBEDIENT LIBERALS IN THE HIERARCHY!

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:44 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Ken Gordon wrote:
WE DID NOT BELIEVE IT WAS THE FAULT OF "THE POPE", BUT OF DISOBEDIENT LIBERALS IN THE HIERARCHY!


I guess you were naive then, Ken. :)

There were those who did know it was coming from the hierarchy...from the top. They knew those individual clerics were in place for many years and wanted to do what they did...it wasn't until they got power that they could openly pursue it. That's when the major visible destruction began. The "disobedient liberals" were no longer disobedient...the men of tradition were now the disobedient ones...along with the crackpot liberals who were called "disobedient" but they were tolerated...and still tolerated today, I might add.


Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:15 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:21 pm
Posts: 10
New post Withdrawing inference
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi


Dear Miles Peior,

Do you intend to withdraw the inference of " dishonesty" you leveled towards Mr. John Lane?

In Xto,
Vincent



I most certainly do, and I apologize!


Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:30 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Withdrawing inference
Miles Peior wrote:
I most certainly do, and I apologize!


Thank you.

I would also be interested in your freshly considered view of the point about "majority" versus "whole" - a point upon which Pat also erred and you supported her misunderstanding.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Oct 21, 2007 12:29 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Dear Ken,

From another thread. Your distress at my comments here has distressed me. The following outlines more fully my view of the "Siri research."

oremus wrote:
Grand Inquisitor,

You wrote a very important point.

"A truth is a truth, whether people know it or not."

In other words the truth is the truth and it cannot change no matter what people even a majority of the people think.
This may also apply the the discussion about "universal acceptance" in the topic "Interesting confirmation on Cardinal Siri's 1958"


Yes, I agree, truth is truth, no matter what anybody thinks.

But the universal acceptance of a pope is part of the relevant truth. It's a component part of the object we are trying to determine. This is because the Church is a visible society of those who, firstly and amongst other things, profess the true Faith outwardly. If the whole Church could adhere to a false pontiff, she would be in an essentially defective state, losing her visible unity and failing in her capacity for knowing things she must by her nature know infallibly. So, we are not, I must emphasise, speaking about "majority opinion" or indeed any kind of opinion, as if human views could alter truth. We are talking about the nature of the Church.

To see this an analogy may assist. The whole Church cannot profess a false faith either. Now, it may happen that many, or even most, fall away and profess a false faith - but all cannot do so. Otherwise the Church would fail, which is impossible. Once again, this has nothing to do with opinion - whatever people think about it, the Faith remains the same.

So it is with the Roman Pontiff. Any given man either is or is not the Roman Pontiff. Opinions won't change that truth. But it is also true that if the whole Church adheres peacefully to him, he is indeed in truth the Roman Pontiff, because she is infallible in identifying him.

In the case of the election of John XXIII, there are grounds for looking into the manner in which it was conducted to see if perhaps it was irregular. Odd things happened which lead to reasonable suspicion by intelligent people. If we were to discover that the election was in fact irregular, then we would also discover that some significant body of Catholics did not really adhere to John XXIII as pope. The two truths would necessarily coincide. At present the evidence available indicates that no such significant body existed. It may have existed, but it is not in evidence. Therefore the only rational view is that it did not exist. Research may prove this to be false, but it has not yet done so. What is in evidence at present is that the whole Church adhered peacefully to John XXIII as pope. Ergo, he was pope.

Does this help to clarify things?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Oct 21, 2007 12:31 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Short reply to John.
John Lane wrote:
In the case of the election of John XXIII, there are grounds for looking into the manner in which it was conducted to see if perhaps it was irregular. Odd things happened which lead to reasonable suspicion by intelligent people. If we were to discover that the election was in fact irregular, then we would also discover that some significant body of Catholics did not really adhere to John XXIII as pope. The two truths would necessarily coincide. At present the evidence available indicates that no such significant body existed. It may have existed, but it is not in evidence. Therefore the only rational view is that it did not exist. Research may prove this to be false, but it has not yet done so. What is in evidence at present is that the whole Church adhered peacefully to John XXIII as pope. Ergo, he was pope.

Does this help to clarify things?


Somewhat: what would, in your opinion, constitute a "...significant body of Catholics..."?

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Sun Oct 21, 2007 2:06 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post More "hearsay" on Roncalli
From the book, I’ll Tell My Cat, by the Italian journalist, Gabriella Montemayor, who was a close friend of Archbishop Arrigo Pintonello:

1) From Chapter 1, ROME: “She (Dr. Elizabeth Gerstner) recounts that in the Vatican, at the time, Pius XII had not yet died when the name of the successor, Roncalli, resounded on everybody’s lips.”

2) “The book (‘The Walls of Jericho’ by Tadeusz Breza) shows clearly how the election of the aging Roncalli had been carefully planned in order to earn the Galero (cardinalitial cap) for Montini, the candidate of leftist Vatican and political circles.”

3) “Roncalli gave assurances he would be up to the task that was to be entrusted to him. Whether or not he died a natural death – half way through the Second Vatican Council –, the examples of our past and recent history suggest it would not be so strange an occurrence (if it had not been). What we do know are the reports of those who stood outside his apartment, and heard him cry, “What did I do?” He had done quite a few ‘things’; but those who happened to catch his cry could swear he was referring to the Council.”


4) “CHAPTER 3” “PAPA BUONO” The first act of the demolition (most Catholics ignore it) was carried out by Roncalli immediately after his election (October 28, 1958), in November, by a Motu Proprio that abolished the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel at the end of the Mass, which the Archangel himself had dictated to Leo XIII in the course of the vision the latter had of the major altar invaded by devils intent on destruction. For that reason, Leo XIII had ordered that the prayer be recited at the close of each Mass, in every part of the world, at a time when Latin was the universal language of all Catholic peoples.

5) A Neapolitan saint, Don Dolindo Ruotolo, who, on account of his advanced age was granted the privilege of saying Mass at his own residence, as I was paying him a visit, having expressly come from Rome, explained the Gospel of the day, saying, “Now the prayer to St. Michael has been abolished, and when the faithful leave the church ‘that one’ [the devil] goes after them.”

6) “Why did I report Don Dolindo’s words in the chapter regarding Roncalli? Because the last time I saw him, Don Dolindo told me, “He (Roncalli) was the first – (and pointing his index finger to the floor) – and now he is down below, down, down… And that other (Paul VI) will follow him, for he committed a mortal sin by opening the [Milan Archbishopric’s] archives on the Monaca di Monza [Nun of Monza, made famous by Alessandro Manzoni’s novel, The Betrothed], when he was archbishop of Milan”.”

7) “But why would Don Dolindo relay this to me? Conceivably because he knew I was committed to the struggle, he read my articles, had asked me to “keep him posted”, so much so that I had been reproached by a lady faithful of his, who wrote me to “quit passing news on to Don Dolindo, as he was weeping all the time.” ”

8] Hence Roncalli knew well – as a good Mason – how to proceed in order to open up the door to his friend Lucifer. The initiation of Roncalli, archbishop of Mesembria, to the Rosa Cross Lodge (Rosicrucians), came about when he was apostolic delegate in Turkey and Greece (“The Prophecies of Pope John”, by Pierre Carpi, Edizioni Mediterranee, Rome). In 1944 he is named Apostolic Nuncio to France, where he befriends freemason ministers, secularists, and anti-clericals.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Sun Oct 21, 2007 2:53 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: More "hearsay" on Roncalli
Dear Ken,

This whole list is interesting, inconclusive, and typical of the "data" that we have on Roncalli. In brief, none of it would constitute evidence of public heresy, even if it were all reliable testimony.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:42 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Short reply to John.
KenGordon wrote:
Somewhat: what would, in your opinion, constitute a "...significant body of Catholics..."?


Well, no Catholics at all doesn't constitute it, I hope we agree?

My view is that two or three cardinals, or four or five bishops, or twenty or thirty priests, of unimpeachable character - i.e. known to be good men, prudent and reasonable, would suffice to eliminate moral unanimity. But it is a matter of judgement. Faced with concrete circumstances we could assess the various factors and produce a judgement. That's how these things work. There is no absolute "number" as there is in certain physical sciences.

The canonist Chas. Augustine, commenting on Canon 2197 (which defines "public" etc.) has the following:
Quote:
To fix the number of persons required for making a crime a public one is rather hazardous, though it may furnish a certain rule which will enable the judge to decide as to the secrecy or public character of a crime. Many canonists hold that at least six persons in a community, even the smallest (for instance, a religious house of 10 or 12 inmates), must know of a crime, to render it public. Nor should there be any doubt about the character of the persons who are witnesses to the crime. Furthermore, the interest they may have in the crime should be weighed.


Woywod has the folowing:
Quote:
The distinction between occult and public offenses is explained in general terms by the Code. Canonists have given more specific rules by which one may judge whether an offense is to be considered publicly known. In the first place, the number of people who were witnesses to an offense and the number of inhabitants of the place where the offense was committed, must be taken into consideration to determine whether an offense may be said to be public. It is maintained by many canonists that at least six persons in a small town or community must know of the offense before it can be called public, and more persons in proportion to the greater number of inhabitants before it can be called public in larger places. However, canonists consider, not only the relative number in determining whether an offense is occult or public, but also the character of the perhaps few persons who witnessed the commission of the offense - whether they are reserved and taciturn or talkative and eager to make known what they have witnessed.


As you can see, for a crime to be canonically "publicly known" (divulgatum) involves a very large proportion of the relevant community knowing of it. This is not good news for sedevacantists if we are assessing John XXIII or Paul VI against a canonical standard, and is hardly even compatible with the idea that JP2's heresy was "publicly known."

Fortunately we can rely upon the other part of the definition of "public" if we are assessing things in canonical terms, so this is not as much of a problem as it might appear.

But, if we are looking for guidance with respect to moral unanimity, the notions here presented are useful analogously. And they make John XXIII look very like a man who was unanimously accepted as pope.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:58 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: More "hearsay" on Roncalli
John Lane wrote:
Dear Ken,

This whole list is interesting, inconclusive, and typical of the "data" that we have on Roncalli. In brief, none of it would constitute evidence of public heresy, even if it were all reliable testimony.


Obviously you saw my title, since you repeated it. I agree. Nonetheless, it does show some of what was current in Italy at the time. I have much more and will post it later. It constitutes part of that "indirect evidence" I keep harping about.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Sun Oct 21, 2007 2:49 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Another Short reply to John.
John Lane wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
Somewhat: what would, in your opinion, constitute a "...significant body of Catholics..."?


Well, no Catholics at all doesn't constitute it, I hope we agree?


Of course. I am not un-intelligent. I simply do not agree that there were "...no Catholics...", and will attempt to prove it.

Quote:
My view is that two or three cardinals, or four or five bishops, or twenty or thirty priests,


No laity, I assume. After all, the laity doesn't count, does it?

As far as the clergy is concerned, I can quote from several: Abp. Arrigo Pintonello, Bishop Thomas C. Fouhy, Don (Fr.) Dolindo Ruotolo. That is, at least, a start. I could add many laity at the time, but as you have indicated, they don't count, despite the fact that I always considered them a major part of the Church.

Quote:
of unimpeachable character - i.e. known to be good men, prudent and reasonable, would suffice to eliminate moral unanimity. But it is a matter of judgement. Faced with concrete circumstances we could assess the various factors and produce a judgement. That's how these things work. There is no absolute "number" as there is in certain physical sciences.

The canonist Chas. Augustine, commenting on Canon 2197 (which defines "public" etc.) has the following:
Quote:
To fix the number of persons required for making a crime a public one is rather hazardous, though it may furnish a certain rule which will enable the judge to decide as to the secrecy or public character of a crime. Many canonists hold that at least six persons in a community, even the smallest (for instance, a religious house of 10 or 12 inmates), must know of a crime, to render it public. Nor should there be any doubt about the character of the persons who are witnesses to the crime. Furthermore, the interest they may have in the crime should be weighed.


Woywod has the folowing:
Quote:
The distinction between occult and public offenses is explained in general terms by the Code. Canonists have given more specific rules by which one may judge whether an offense is to be considered publicly known. In the first place, the number of people who were witnesses to an offense and the number of inhabitants of the place where the offense was committed, must be taken into consideration to determine whether an offense may be said to be public. It is maintained by many canonists that at least six persons in a small town or community must know of the offense before it can be called public, and more persons in proportion to the greater number of inhabitants before it can be called public in larger places. However, canonists consider, not only the relative number in determining whether an offense is occult or public, but also the character of the perhaps few persons who witnessed the commission of the offense - whether they are reserved and taciturn or talkative and eager to make known what they have witnessed.


As you can see, for a crime to be canonically "publicly known" (divulgatum) involves a very large proportion of the relevant community knowing of it. This is not good news for sedevacantists if we are assessing John XXIII or Paul VI against a canonical standard, and is hardly even compatible with the idea that JP2's heresy was "publicly known."

Fortunately we can rely upon the other part of the definition of "public" if we are assessing things in canonical terms, so this is not as much of a problem as it might appear.

But, if we are looking for guidance with respect to moral unanimity, the notions here presented are useful analogously. And they make John XXIII look very like a man who was unanimously accepted as pope.


Which is your opinion, and nothing more. My opinion is opposite to yours, and, as I have time, I will attempt to prove it by direct quotes, if you really require them, from those who lived at the time.

In the case of Montini, I can quote Abp Pintonello from memory, "Montini was a bum.", which was about the worst epithet he ever used on anyone.

However, I won't quote what he said of Cardinal Siri. You wouldn't believe it anyway, despite the fact that we have it on video tape.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:02 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Another Short reply to John.
KenGordon wrote:
No laity, I assume. After all, the laity doesn't count, does it?


Of course it does, but the relative numbers mean that you'd be looking at thousands in order to constitute a defect in moral unanimity.


KenGordon wrote:
As far as the clergy is concerned, I can quote from several: Abp. Arrigo Pintonello, Bishop Thomas C. Fouhy, Don (Fr.) Dolindo Ruotolo. That is, at least, a start. I could add many laity at the time, but as you have indicated, they don't count, despite the fact that I always considered them a major part of the Church.

One of the curious features of the Siri research has always been the claim of loads of evidence coupled with excellent reasons not to reveal it, at least until "later." Just being frank.


KenGordon wrote:
However, I won't quote what he said of Cardinal Siri. You wouldn't believe it anyway, despite the fact that we have it on video tape.

What a strange comment.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:15 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:54 am
Posts: 147
New post Re: Another Short reply to John.
KenGordon wrote:
Which is your opinion, and nothing more. My opinion is opposite to yours, and, as I have time, I will attempt to prove it by direct quotes, if you really require them, from those who lived at the time.


With respect, and I know my opinion doesn't mean much if anything seeing as I'm likely the youngest poster on this board, but although I do agree with you on a lot of things and although I do believe in much of the "circumstancial" evidence that is out there regarding Cardinal Siri and although I have trouble accepting (yet :) ) all that Mr. Lane has said, I think now might be such a time to present such direct quotes. I do believe he has sufficiently (especially with these last two theologian's quotes) provided enough theological support for moral unanimity. Now the question remains if John XXIII had such support or not. Not whether the concept of moral unanimity exists, because I think it's clear that it does. You have said that you have evidence of unrest at the time. Do you believe its enough to call into question his election? If so, why the hesitation to post it? Surely anything possibly incriminating for those who made such comments could be edited out?


Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:31 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Another Short reply to John.
Colin Fry wrote:
You have said that you have evidence of unrest at the time. Do you believe its enough to call into question his election?


Yes.

Quote:
If so, why the hesitation to post it?


For several reasons: 1) My primary duty is to my family, and the time I spend here is taken away from what I consider that primary duty. 2) As I have mentioned, the condition of my health is such that I have very little spare time to devote to digging out all the info I have accumulated over the years, and have put away, long since, because it became painfully obvious to me, then, that the information I held was doing no one any good but me.

Quote:
Surely anything possibly incriminating for those who made such comments could be edited out?


Perhaps.

As I said, I will post here as much information that I can still find, as I think safe, as I have time to do it.

I am still awaiting an answer from John listing in detail what information or evidence or even types of evidence he would consider valid and unquestioned about the 1958 conclave. So far, he has not answered that question to my satisfaction, if, in fact, he has answered it at all.

As I mentioned at least once before, it seems to me that the only evidence John would accept is signed affidavits by those in attendance at the 1958 conclave, most of whom are now dead...or apostate.

Looking at the issue another way, John says he would accept the (I assume, signed and notarized) statements of a certain number of prelates and "...20 or 30 priests..." of unimpeachable character who lived during that time, the youngest of whom, taking 25 years old as the canonically acceptable age for the ordination of a priest, would have to be at least 74 years old today. ALL of the cardinals and most of the bishops of that time would have to be at least 84 years old. Most would have to be in their 90s or beyond.

By demanding this sort of "proof" he is asking what is clearly impossible to obtain, especially in the current circumstances.

On the other hand, anything I have here to report would have to be at least third-hand, and therefore, according to John's definition, simply hearsay, and therefore, patently unacceptable as any sort of proof.

So, what good would my efforts be? As far as I can see, none whatever. Therefore, why should I expend that sort of effort, and take that much time away from my family duties?

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:36 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Another Short reply to John.
John Lane wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
However, I won't quote what he said of Cardinal Siri. You wouldn't believe it anyway, despite the fact that we have it on video tape.

What a strange comment.


Strange? How so? Please explain.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:41 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Another Short reply to John.
John Lane wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
As far as the clergy is concerned, I can quote from several: Abp. Arrigo Pintonello, Bishop Thomas C. Fouhy, Don (Fr.) Dolindo Ruotolo. That is, at least, a start. I could add many laity at the time, but as you have indicated, they don't count, despite the fact that I always considered them a major part of the Church.

One of the curious features of the Siri research has always been the claim of loads of evidence coupled with excellent reasons not to reveal it, at least until "later." Just being frank.


Frank?!?. I thought your name was John! :D

In any case, I don't believe **I** ever said such a thing.

The most obvious one who said that is now neutralized by reason of fear and intimidation. If I had all the information that he has, I would have published it, God willing, long ago! We have literally BEGGED him to publish it, but he won't, and I don't think he ever will. He is too afraid.

Personally, I think much of his fear is phantasmic, from the devil, and not real. But he believes it, and we cannot persuade him otherwise.

He also insists that he has to have "...the smoking gun..." before he dares to publish anything. None of us believe that will ever be found.

I repeat: almost all the evidence we, personally, have is at least third-hand...which you will not accept, calling it simply "hearsay"...and I must completely agree with you in that assessment. However, we have to work with what we have.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:55 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:54 am
Posts: 147
New post 
Okay, thanks for the response. I completely understand your position, but I have to say I understand where Mr. Lane is coming from as well. I think I certainly would find even a third-hand account compelling to a certain extent and believe I would benefit from any such information (as I think I may have intimated to you at some point). Especially if there were many such accounts. However I do think it is a little much, at this point in time, to declare that there was, absolutely and for sure, unrest about John XXIII. I most definitely think there is plenty enough "abnormalities" to continue an investigation into such a topic, and I'm even more certain that you have even more reason to believe so, as you have done far more research than I have the capabilities to do. I don't doubt that you have information. And I don't doubt that I would love to see whatever you can share, privately or publicly. But at this point if the general acceptance of a pope by the faithful and clergy is indeed A proof of legitimacy, then I think something more than speculative accounts is necessary to make a statement yes or no for certain without any reservations. On the other hand, if I saw such accounts as you say you have, even third hand accounts, I would probably be hesitant to simply admit that John XXIII definitely and for sure had the universal peaceful adherence that Mr. Lane says he has (no disrespect to you Mr. Lane). So I, at least, would definitely like to see whatever you care to share.


Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:10 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Another Short reply to John.
KenGordon wrote:
I am still awaiting an answer from John listing in detail what information or evidence or even types of evidence he would consider valid and unquestioned about the 1958 conclave. So far, he has not answered that question to my satisfaction, if, in fact, he has answered it at all.


Sorry, Ken, but it's hard to answer a question like that. When evidence is presented then one can assess it. If one were required to expound the types and grades of evidence generically, it would take an enormous amount of work and would only be imitating (probably very poorly) what law schools already do as a matter of course. And when one is already aware that one’s interlocutor does not even claim to have any evidence except hearsay, the effort seems entirely futile.

I re-read your entire Web site during the early hours of this morning whilst holding a non-sleeping Eleanor, just to ensure that I had not missed the evidence that is supposedly there, and I was not mistaken – there is very little which even claims to be of evidentiary value. But you know that.

KenGordon wrote:
As I mentioned at least once before, it seems to me that the only evidence John would accept is signed affidavits by those in attendance at the 1958 conclave, most of whom are now dead...or apostate.


Well that is not right. Well-established public and private acts of relevant individuals constitute good evidence. Published or otherwise established statements of fact by relevant individuals would be considered good evidence, etc. There are a host of items which would constitute good evidence – but hearsay is not really evidence at all – it is merely a pointer to possible evidence.

For example, one of the clearest statements of claim regarding Siri’s putative election is that of Fr. Charles-Roux. It is hearsay. The natural thing to have asked him would be where he got his information. Yet nobody seems to have done so – not Inside the Vatican, not Gary Giuffre, not anybody. Why not? This could easily have either eliminated the item as definitely unreliable hearsay, or led to a more substantial and direct item or items of evidence.

Malachi Martin’s statements are bereft of any value whatsoever, by the way. His standard modus operandi was to say things which were of prurient or otherwise-titillating interest which he thought his readers wanted to hear, and which suited the carnal-minded types who prefer murder-mystery over doctrinal argument. The Siri Thesis was exactly the kind of thing he would grab and make his own, conveniently placing himself at the centre of the information loop and thus garnering whatever kudos it had to offer as well as providing a page or two for his racy and worthless novel.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:27 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Another Short reply to John.
KenGordon wrote:
Strange? How so? Please explain.


If you say you have Pintonello on video making a statement, why would I refuse to believe you?

Of course, whatever claim Pintonello made should be assessed on its merits, like anything else. What did he say?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:31 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Another Short reply to John.
John Lane wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
I am still awaiting an answer from John listing in detail what information or evidence or even types of evidence he would consider valid and unquestioned about the 1958 conclave. So far, he has not answered that question to my satisfaction, if, in fact, he has answered it at all.


Sorry, Ken, but it's hard to answer a question like that.


Sigh...I was afraid that was the case. I am not very good at this...

Quote:
When evidence is presented then one can assess it. If one were required to expound the types and grades of evidence generically, it would take an enormous amount of work and would only be imitating (probably very poorly) what law schools already do as a matter of course. And when one is already aware that one’s interlocutor does not even claim to have any evidence except hearsay, the effort seems entirely futile.


Yes, indeed. I think I've said as much.

Quote:
I re-read your entire Web site during the early hours of this morning whilst holding a non-sleeping Eleanor, just to ensure that I had not missed the evidence that is supposedly there, and I was not mistaken – there is very little which even claims to be of evidentiary value. But you know that.


Yes.

Quote:
KenGordon wrote:
As I mentioned at least once before, it seems to me that the only evidence John would accept is signed affidavits by those in attendance at the 1958 conclave, most of whom are now dead...or apostate.


Well that is not right. Well-established public and private acts of relevant individuals constitute good evidence. Published or otherwise established statements of fact by relevant individuals would be considered good evidence, etc. There are a host of items which would constitute good evidence – but hearsay is not really evidence at all – it is merely a pointer to possible evidence.


Yes. I think I've said something like that last.

Quote:
For example, one of the clearest statements of claim regarding Siri’s putative election is that of Fr. Charles-Roux. It is hearsay. The natural thing to have asked him would be where he got his information.


He WAS asked. However, as with most things I have been forced by circumstances to say here, I cannot prove it. Apparently, he was there. I.e., inside the 1958 conclave. His father was also a very close friend of Tisserant.

Quote:
Yet nobody seems to have done so – not Inside the Vatican, not Gary Giuffre, not anybody.


I apologize on that one, but no one asked me specifically about that. Gary Giuffré traveled to Europe some time ago to interview him. Gary was told by Fr. Charles-Roux what I said above.

Quote:
Why not? This could easily have either eliminated the item as definitely unreliable hearsay, or led to a more substantial and direct item or items of evidence.


Well, there was one other very important thing which happened at the early interview: one of the questions asked Fr. Charles-Roux, or rather un-necessary statement made in his presence, resulted in his clamming up so tightly that hardly another word was gotten out of him then. That is one reason we were so surprised to read his words in Inside the Vatican, which, as you should well know, is on the side of the enemy.

Quote:
Malachi Martin’s statements are bereft of any value whatsoever, by the way.


Well, yes, of course mostly. According to what we have seen, Malachi was at least a "double-agent" if not a "triple-agent". In addition, his death was highly suspicious. We think his desire for glory made him make too many mistakes in what he "let out". In my opinion, he was a total traitor and an evil man.

The only reason we mention him at all is because SOME of the things he says are consistent with other information from other sources.

Even the devil can tell the truth when it suits him, or can be forced to the truth by God.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:37 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Another Short reply to John.
John Lane wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
Strange? How so? Please explain.


If you say you have Pintonello on video making a statement, why would I refuse to believe you?


I say that because I have not yet really figured out how to present ANY evidence in the form you will believe. You seem to me to be...umm...rather close-minded on this issue (which, by the way, I had said I was never going to address again, but here I am breaking my word), such that it seemed to me that you, also, must have "...the smoking gun..." actually in your hand, and have the remains in front you before you will believe anything about it. However, I also may have misinterpreted.

Quote:
Of course, whatever claim Pintonello made should be assessed on its merits, like anything else. What did he say?


OK. Here goes: He was asked directly, "Was Siri the pope?", his reply was, "Yes, and he was the BEST pope!"

Then, on a much later tape, after Siri had died, he was asked, "Are you Siri's successor?", His reply was, "I'm too old.". Then he smiled, stood up and very animatedly recounted an incident in Pope Leo XIII's history. At, I believe, Leo's 90th birthday, one of those in attendance stood up and toasted him saying, "Happy Birthday, Holy Father. May you have another 10 years." And Pope Leo stood up and laughingly exclaimed, "Let's not put limits on God!"

Now, remember Frank...uh...John :D I've sent you a DVD which had some information on it about the 1958 years and afterwards. As I remember it, you viewed a few minutes of it, and essentially dismissed it as further ineffective proof for Siri's election. However, although there is SOME of that on the DVD, the much greater part of it deals simply with the happenings in the Church around that period of the Church's history.

There is also another interview with Fr. Charles-Roux on it.

I might add that the fellow who made that DVD told a very close friend of ours (NOT GG) who worked for him that that particular DVD contained less than 1/3 of the information that he actually has...and the remaining 2/3 added to that 1/3 has completely convinced him.

Unfortunately, we cannot get to that information, and I have no idea what, if anything, he intends to do with it.

And this is simply more hearsay, John...but at least it is all consistent.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:00 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:50 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Rock Island, Illinois, USA
New post 
Ken Gordon wrote:
Quote:
I might add that the fellow who made that DVD told a very close friend of ours (NOT GG) who worked for him that that particular DVD contained less than 1/3 of the information that he actually has...and the remaining 2/3 added to that 1/3 has completely convinced him.


Ken,

I find this troublesome. This source only releases a third of the information, says that that information combined with the remaining two-thirds was completely convincing, and yet won't release the remaining information? Why is it so close-hold? If it is as convincing information as he says it is, then let's see it. Apart from the snippets which you have shared here, the information also appears to have a limited distribution. If the information is so compelling, why is it not more widely known? This information is hardly esoteric, and affects every Catholic.

Proof such as this is always suspect, and of little value. It is better not to take it seriously until and if it can be corroborated.

Just my opinion, Ken.

Chris Browne


Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:37 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Short Reply to Chris
Chris Browne wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
Quote:
I might add that the fellow who made that DVD told a very close friend of ours (NOT GG) who worked for him that that particular DVD contained less than 1/3 of the information that he actually has...and the remaining 2/3 added to that 1/3 has completely convinced him.


Ken,

I find this troublesome.


Me too.

Quote:
This source only releases a third of the information,


Actually, he has not released it publicly at all. I made a somewhat edited copy of it and asked his permission to distribute it to a few close associates and certain other traditional Catholics. He gave me that permission, but insisted that nothing on it would be directly traceable to him.

Quote:
says that that information combined with the remaining two-thirds was completely convincing,


...to HIM, yes. I was already convinced, and although I would certainly like to see it, I really don't need it.

Quote:
and yet won't release the remaining information?


Well, I think it more a matter of "can't", than "won't". The situation is very complex, unfortunately.

Quote:
Why is it so close-hold?


Well, it involves an awful lot of other people, most of whom are adamantly opposed to Catholicism itself, let alone anything so...um...esoteric as this.

The forces of evil don't want it diseminated, for obvious reasons, and God, for the present, is allowing that for His own good reasons. So, I can only do so much.

I will reiterate: this entire situation has been a major source of frustration for us. We have this information, firmly believe it to be the truth, yet can do, apparently, nothing with it. We don't understand, yet, why God would give it to us, yet seemingly prevent us from convincing anyone about it. It probably isn't God's time for it yet.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:34 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post A clarification.
I must apologize to you who are following this discussion.

You see, I am not very patient, and so I apologize for my impatience.

After all, when I think back about how we came to this knowledge and certainty, I realize that it took us somewhere around 5 years of intense study, and innumerable hours-long telephone calls, to arrive at our, now firmly held, conclusions. It has been, for us, about 15 years since we became involved in this research, and we are learning new things about it all the time. And it is all consistent, as I have mentioned here before this.

It took us a long time to realize that it even MIGHT be so. We could hardly believe it for a long, long time. It seemed so fantastic. In addition, our understanding of what really constitutes the membership of the Church had to undergo a drastic revision.

We had to completely lose our naívete about Her. We had to lose our illusions about Her.

After all, the Church is clearly made up of good and bad. Our Lord clearly told us this in His parable about the sea, the net, and the good and bad fishes.

The generallity, the majority, I would say, of those who call themselves Catholics are essentially indifferent. Some are very good, or at least, are trying to be. Some others are extremely evil and are working for Her destruction. Yet they all are members of Her.

So, we must become rather more "practical" or pragmatic, in the worldly sense, and realize that there are vast forces out there actively working for Her destruction.

We must also, then, truly become, as St. Paul and our own Confirmation tells us, Soldiers of Christ, Crusaders, and, taking St. Michael as our Captain, fight with all the weapons God puts into our hands against the enemies of the Church.

We absolutely must become, as Our Lord told us, as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves.

"Let God arise. Let His enemies be scattered. Let those who hate Him flee from before His face." "Come, Lord Jesus."

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:38 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !


Quote:
We must also, then, truly become, as St. Paul and our own Confirmation tells us, Soldiers of Christ, Crusaders, and, taking St. Michael as our Captain, fight with all the weapons God puts into our hands against the enemies of the Church.


Indeed. Regarding the Siri Thesis, if in fact it is real, this heroic stand appears lacking, if only the clergy involved including the alleged " pope elect " followed this call. This constant theme of " to fearful" to state the facts ( if known) by the main players in this so-called drama does wear thin, especially, if one contrasts their paralyzing fear for their safety, or of loved ones, with the obscure Italian policeman in So. Italy risking his life and his families life’s to fight the Mafia. This pales in comparison to fighting for the triumph of Christ our King and his mystical Body the Church.


In Xto,
Vincent


Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:55 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:34 pm
Posts: 89
Location: Griffin, GA
New post Interesting topic
This is a very interesting topioc!
But I have not learned anything new!!

_________________
"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."


Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:28 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Very short reply to Vince
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi !


Quote:
We must also, then, truly become, as St. Paul and our own Confirmation tells us, Soldiers of Christ, Crusaders, and, taking St. Michael as our Captain, fight with all the weapons God puts into our hands against the enemies of the Church.


Indeed. Regarding the Siri Thesis, if in fact it is real, this heroic stand appears lacking, if only the clergy involved including the alleged " pope elect " followed this call. This constant theme of " to fearful" to state the facts ( if known) by the main players in this so-called drama does wear thin, especially, if one contrasts their paralyzing fear for their safety, or of loved ones, with the obscure Italian policeman in So. Italy risking his life and his families life’s to fight the Mafia. This pales in comparison to fighting for the triumph of Christ our King and his mystical Body the Church.


"Judge not, lest ye be judged..."

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Last edited by KenGordon on Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:40 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Interesting topic - reply to Linda
Linda wrote:
This is a very interesting topioc!
But I have not learned anything new!!


Then stop reading it.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:41 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Chris Browne wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
Quote:
I might add that the fellow who made that DVD told a very close friend of ours (NOT GG) who worked for him that that particular DVD contained less than 1/3 of the information that he actually has...and the remaining 2/3 added to that 1/3 has completely convinced him.


Ken,

I find this troublesome. This source only releases a third of the information, says that that information combined with the remaining two-thirds was completely convincing, and yet won't release the remaining information? Why is it so close-hold? If it is as convincing information as he says it is, then let's see it. Apart from the snippets which you have shared here, the information also appears to have a limited distribution. If the information is so compelling, why is it not more widely known? This information is hardly esoteric, and affects every Catholic.

Proof such as this is always suspect, and of little value. It is better not to take it seriously until and if it can be corroborated.

Just my opinion, Ken.

Chris Browne


Ken,

I read Chris' comments to mean that taking this stuff seriously is imprudent. Haven't we had this very same discussion elsewhere?

It seems that you just ignored Chris' last sentence.

I can't tell you how many times someone has referred to some piece of "proof" that they have...and when they are pressed about it...it always seems to be lost or packed away in their basement. I can't place my trust in some unknown or undisclosed documents...any more that I can submit to an unknown Pope. I really can't see how any of this is of value today...I'm not saying it couldn't be explored...but give the current state of things I can't see how it is relevant.

Robert


Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:51 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Attempted reply to Robert.
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Chris Browne wrote:
Proof such as this is always suspect, and of little value. It is better not to take it seriously until and if it can be corroborated.

I read Chris' comments to mean that taking this stuff seriously is imprudent. Haven't we had this very same discussion elsewhere?


Hmmmm...not to my knowledge...or at least not the exact same thing.

As you know, Robert, you and I seem to have a particular problem understanding one another...

Quote:
It seems that you just ignored Chris' last sentence.


Perhaps you're right, although I didn't intend to. I guess the reason I bypassed it is because it "...does not compute...". I guess I wasn't sure to what "proof" he was referring. I repeated that the person who made the DVD was convinced, and I was trying to suggest that that same "convincing proof" may not be convincing to anyone else.

Quote:
I can't tell you how many times someone has referred to some piece of "proof" that they have...and when they are pressed about it...it always seems to be lost or packed away in their basement.


I ***THINK*** I understand what you are trying to say, but at the moment I don't have the patience to attempt to translate it into something I DO understand.

Quote:
I can't place my trust in some unknown or undisclosed documents...any more that I can submit to an unknown Pope.


Well, as far as I can tell, no one has ever asked you to, have they?

Quote:
I really can't see how any of this is of value today...I'm not saying it couldn't be explored...but given the current state of things I can't see how it is relevant.


Well, let us assume for the moment that I am able to communicate myself, clearly and unambiguously, to you. As I noted above, you and I seem to have a particular problem understanding one another. Nevertheless, I am willing to try again.

Let me attempt to lay out a possibly hypothetical scenario for you, and let's then see where it leads, shall we? I will try to leave out all of what I consider to be (relatively) irrelevant, although by doing so, I am not thereby denying its effect. I will also try to include possible consequenes, if I can.

1) The Pope has died, and electors are gathered together to elect his successor.

2) A significant number of the electors are actually secret enemies of the Church and wish Her destruction.

3) They know that every previous attempt to install a Pope by a valid election who would follow their agenda has resulted in total failure because the Holy Ghost has always prevented such a thing by His "charisms" given to the validly elected one.

4) They also know from history that every time they have tried to substitute a false pope for the true one, it has also resulted in failure, because God has prevented the people and clergy from, ultimately, recognizing the false pope, since there cannot be two true popes at any one time.

5) So, to reach their goal, their tasks break down into two very important ones: A) they must somehow prevent the "charisms" of the Holy Ghost from protecting the one "elected", and B) this "un-protected electee" must somehow be presented to the Church as the true pope.

6) A) is only achieveable by engineering the election of a true pope, on whom the charisms of the Holy Ghost would rest, and B) would only be achieveable by then thrusting him aside, and engineering the election of the "unprotected one" in his place, all within a sealed conclave.

When I finally understood this scenario, I was amazed at how diabolically clever it was.

Now, of course, you will ask, as I asked myself, what about the OTHER prelates in attendance? Why didn't they do or say something, anything? I have no answer for that, and don't think I should be required to answer it because I, being a Catholic, am not required to judge the actions of my fellow man, and have no real proof for any accusations I could make.

I am certain there are answers to that question, probably unique to each man who was there.

However, although, as we have agreed, Malachi Martin cannot be trusted to tell the truth very often, he did say something which might be a possible clue. He was describing a time when he was working for Cardinal Bea and how much he enjoyed shaking their skeletons-in-the-closets in the faces of many cardinals when demanding something of them. He said that he enjoyed the power. In other words, Bea was black-mailing many of them into compliance of one kind or another.

Let us, for the moment, go on with our scenario. Leaving out our digression, we know the following:

1) We have a valid pope.

2) The one presented to the world as the valid pope, isn't. He is an anti-pope, supposedly elected within what to all outside looks like a completely valid conclave.

3) Since we have a valid pope, the See of Peter is NOT vacant.

4) The Apostolic succession has NOT failed, of even gone "dormant".

5) VC ONE's dogmatic pronouncement that "...Peter will have perpetual successors until the end of time..." can be understood in another, more direct, way.

6) Christ's promise to us that the "...gates, etc..." is even more substantiated.

7) The valid pope can provide for a successor some way. The most obvious is by appointment.

But, you say, there is no "proof". Most certainly, as I have repeatedly stated, we have almost no "direct" proof. It is in the best interests of the enemy that any such proof disappear. However, there is plenty of "indirect" proof, if we will only look for it.

Of course, it will be in the best interests of the enemy to keep the true Pope alive, and powerless, as long as possible in order to continue the destruction of the Church, and to eventually get the generallity of Catholics completely used to the New Church they have made. Then even the idea of what a true Pope really is will die out, except amongst a few foolish diehards, who have no power, and no credibility, and no resources. Further, those few who dare to stick their necks out can be easily quashed by the news media and the other weapons of the enemy, or even by other more direct, and bloody, means.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:16 am
Profile E-mail
New post 
Love to All; just popping in without finishing the entire thread - but Ken, if you can manage the time, I hope you can relay some more details.

I figure Pope Leo XIII's original Prayer to St.Michael covers a lot of what you are hinting at, but if I'm off-base please let me know. May God bless everyone.


Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:02 am

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:50 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Rock Island, Illinois, USA
New post 
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Quote:
I can't tell you how many times someone has referred to some piece of "proof" that they have...and when they are pressed about it...it always seems to be lost or packed away in their basement. I can't place my trust in some unknown or undisclosed documents...any more that I can submit to an unknown Pope. I really can't see how any of this is of value today...I'm not saying it couldn't be explored...but give the current state of things I can't see how it is relevant.


That is my point exactly.

Ken Gordon wrote:
Quote:
I repeated that the person who made the DVD was convinced, and I was trying to suggest that that same "convincing proof" may not be convincing to anyone else.


That was not the impression I got, but I may have misunderstood...

Ken Gordon wrote:
Quote:
We had to completely lose our naívete about Her. We had to lose our illusions about Her.


I have no illusions about Her. About the people in power in the Church, certainly.

Ken Gordon wrote:
Quote:
We have this information, firmly believe it to be the truth, yet can do, apparently, nothing with it. We don't understand, yet, why God would give it to us, yet seemingly prevent us from convincing anyone about it. It probably isn't God's time for it yet.


and

Quote:
Well, it involves an awful lot of other people, most of whom are adamantly opposed to Catholicism itself, let alone anything so...um...esoteric as this.


So it is esoteric, then? To be of any value, it should not be information limited to a select, privileged few. Until this can be corroborated, and the position and character of the witness verified and considered, the information is simply a flight of fancy, and of little value. It certainly is not sufficient to begin forming conclusions or even hypotheses.

Chris


Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:45 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Short reply to Chris
Chris Browne wrote:
So it is esoteric, then?


I chose that word in order to make a somewhat sarcastic point. It is "esoteric" to those who won't try to understand it, nor believe it. I was "pointing" the word at people like you.

Quote:
To be of any value, it should not be information limited to a select, privileged few.


Agreed. That is why I have been trying, obviously ineffectively so far, to present a little of it to the members of this forum.

Quote:
Until this can be corroborated,


To exactly which "this" are you referring? Did you have any particular "this" in mind?

Quote:
and the position and character of the witness verified and considered, the information is simply a flight of fancy, and of little value. It certainly is not sufficient to begin forming conclusions or even hypotheses.


OK. Then don't. I'm really not asking you to, and I really don't much care whether you do or not. I am simply attempting to answer honest questions in the best and most honest ways I can.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:41 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Short reply to Elizabeth.
eliz carroll wrote:
Love to All; just popping in without finishing the entire thread - but Ken, if you can manage the time, I hope you can relay some more details.


Hello, Elizabeth! It is nice to hear from you again! Well, I have been spending far to much time attempting to pass on as much of the information as I can. Obviously, I am not doing a very good job of getting my points across.

Quote:
I figure Pope Leo XIII's original Prayer to St.Michael covers a lot of what you are hinting at, but if I'm off-base please let me know.


No, Ma'am, you are not off base. Not one bit. That prayer is part of the answers we seek.

Quote:
May God bless everyone.


Including you, Dear Heart. :D

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:47 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:50 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Rock Island, Illinois, USA
New post 
Ken Gordon wrote:
Quote:
It is "esoteric" to those who won't try to understand it, nor believe it. I was "pointing" the word at people like you.


I am well aware of my limitations, but it isn't a question of 'understanding'. There isn't anything not to understand. Rather, it is a question of believability. Nothing has been presented that would compel me to believe this story or accept it as fact. It isn't at all clear whether you believe it, just that it didn't convince you (as you were already convinced), but do you?

Ken Gordon wrote:
Quote:
To exactly which "this" are you referring? Did you have any particular "this" in mind?


The information from the DVD that you are piecemealing out regarding the Siri thesis.

I don't think anyone is impugning your honesty, Ken. It is obvious to all here that your love for the Church is great, and that you feel the distress of the last 40+ years very keenly, just as we all do. What you are asking is that we accept the premise as true simply because it was relayed by you.

Chris Browne


Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:52 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Ken Gordon wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
I can't tell you how many times someone has referred to some piece of "proof" that they have...and when they are pressed about it...it always seems to be lost or packed away in their basement.


I ***THINK*** I understand what you are trying to say, but at the moment I don't have the patience to attempt to translate it into something I DO understand.


Ken,

Example:

Someone tells me that St Robert Bellarmine defines the term "manifest heretic". They say that he defined it meaning that the culprit must be questioned by the Church and then judged by the Church.

I ask, "Can you provide the source for this?"

They say, "Well, I translated it from the original latin 10 years ago and it is packed away in my basement...I'll look for it."

Several weeks later, I ask again for this source. They haven't had time to look for it...but they remember their basement flooded several years ago and some of the boxes were water damaged and were thrown out...it appears that this one was in that damaged bunch.

Okay. So there is no source produced for the original statement. I have no need to call this fellow a liar...or think ill of him. It is possible that he is just mistaken. It is possible that he is correct. But none of this really matters...he made a claim...but the source cannot be verified. As far as I am concerned it is false. I can't say it is true...or even probable...or even likely. I simply don't know. He should have never made this claim and should withdraw it from consideration.

Do you agree?

Robert


Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:49 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Attempted reply to Robert.
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
I can't tell you how many times someone has referred to some piece of "proof" that they have...and when they are pressed about it...it always seems to be lost or packed away in their basement.


I ***THINK*** I understand what you are trying to say, but at the moment I don't have the patience to attempt to translate it into something I DO understand.


Ken,

Example:

Someone tells me that St Robert Bellarmine defines the term "manifest heretic". They say that he defined it meaning that the culprit must be questioned by the Church and then judged by the Church.

I ask, "Can you provide the source for this?"

They say, "Well, I translated it from the original latin 10 years ago and it is packed away in my basement...I'll look for it."

Several weeks later, I ask again for this source. They haven't had time to look for it...but they remember their basement flooded several years ago and some of the boxes were water damaged and were thrown out...it appears that this one was in that damaged bunch.

Okay. So there is no source produced for the original statement. I have no need to call this fellow a liar...or think ill of him. It is possible that he is just mistaken. It is possible that he is correct. But none of this really matters...he made a claim...but the source cannot be verified. As far as I am concerned it is false. I can't say it is true...or even probable...or even likely. I simply don't know. He should have never made this claim and should withdraw it from consideration.

Do you agree?

Robert


I most certainly do NOT, because you are misunderstanding what I am saying about it.

Tell you what, Robert, I'll send you a copy of the DVD and you make your own decisions, all right? I think once you see it, you will understand at least a little bit better why I cannot tell everything I know on a forum which is viewable by everyone in the world, some of whom are undoubtedly the implacable enemies of the Church.

In fact, although, as usual, you will probably laugh yourself silly, I am afraid that some of the things I have said here already may be dangerous for someone I don't even know.

I have never said that I cannot find the information, or that it is lost, or that it ended up in a flooded basement. I have been saying, repeatedly, that I CANNOT give you some of the information you and others seek because it is DANGEROUS for some others involved.

I cannot give it HERE because this forum is open to anyone who cares to visit it.

Why can you not get that through your head? We are living in particularly evil times. We have enemies all around us, most of whom you would not recognize, all bent on the total destruction of the Church and everything we love about Her.

Why would I hand the enemy information which could help him destroy the Church, by publishing it on a PUBLIC FORUM?

I am trying to give you Catholics as much help as I can to come to a realization that there are far more sinister things happening to our poor Church than these surface things which we discuss here.

You, Robert, appear to me to be one who is too complacent, too insulated, to understand the danger, or even admit the possibility of its existence.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:13 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Reply to Vince, where it belongs...
You stated that there were no bishops who did not attend VCII who stated as their reason for doing so that Roncalli was not the pope.

I replied that you were incorrect.

You then asked me to prove it.

I did some research on that question, as promised, and here is the result.

It turns out that we know the name of only one of those, since all those who did not attend on this basis were behind the Iron Curtain, and we have not yet been able to ferret out their names.

They did not attend for at least two reasons:

1) Because they believed that Roncalli had been put in place by Communists (as also mentioned by one of the quotes I provided from Gabriella Montemayor), and this belief was proven correct to them by Roncalli's insistence that Nikodim, a known KGB agent, be present at the Council, and by the fact that, despite much pressure from conservative forces at the Council, the Council never condemned Communism.

2) Because travel to the Council from Eastern Europe was extremely difficult, if not impossible at that time.

I might add that many Catholic bishops were in KGB prisons at that time.

That one Bishop whose name we know at present was the Ukranian Archbishop Volodymyr Sterniuk, C.SS.R., now deceased, who had been in a KGB prison for 14 years. At the time he was inteviewed in 1998, he was in Canada. He was around 90 years old at that time, and had full possession of his faculties. In fact, he said many humorous things during the interview and our interviewer liked him a lot.

Archbishop Sterniuk was asked specifically about Roncalli, and he stated categorically that he was not the pope. He also said that JPII was "a devil".

However, as you and others have pointed out, even this information, as important as I believe it to be, is still nothing but "hearsay".

I repeat: DIRECT evidence is extremely difficult to obtain. This, however, is another bit of that "indirect" evidence I talk about, and is consistent with the rest.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:16 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Reply to Vince - a correction.
The interview with Abp. Sterniuk had to have taken place in 1997 or even 1996, not 1998, as I stated, since he died in 1997 at the age of 90.6 years.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:22 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Reply to Chris
Chris Browne wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
Quote:
It is "esoteric" to those who won't try to understand it, nor believe it. I was "pointing" the word at people like you.


I am well aware of my limitations, but it isn't a question of 'understanding'. There isn't anything not to understand. Rather, it is a question of believability. Nothing has been presented that would compel me to believe this story or accept it as fact. It isn't at all clear whether you believe it, just that it didn't convince you (as you were already convinced), but do you?


Yes.

Quote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
Quote:
To exactly which "this" are you referring? Did you have any particular "this" in mind?


The information from the DVD that you are piecemealing out regarding the Siri thesis.


OK. That statement is clearer: I have not given ANY information from the DVD at all, as far as I remember. Everything I have presented here is from other sources which I remember reading. I only mentioned the DVD as CORROBORATION. Sorry for the confusion.

Quote:
I don't think anyone is impugning your honesty, Ken.


I think if you will re-read quaerere's last post you may agree with my assessment.

Quote:
It is obvious to all here that your love for the Church is great, and that you feel the distress of the last 40+ years very keenly, just as we all do. What you are asking is that we accept the premise as true simply because it was relayed by you.


Actually, Chris, I am not expecting that at all. I know these are very difficult ideas to accept. I am simply trying to present as much information as I safely can to help you all understand a little better the depths of the evil against us.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:31 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Correction of my previous reply to Chris
Actually, I did mention something directly from the DVD: I said that there was another interview with Fr. Charles-Roux on it.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:35 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Reply to Vince, where it belongs...
KenGordon wrote:
It turns out that we know the name of only one of those, since all those who did not attend on this basis were behind the Iron Curtain, and we have not yet been able to ferret out their names.

They did not attend for at least two reasons:


Who is "they"? Those who did not attend for any reason, or those who did not attend because they thought Roncalli was not pope?

In any case, only those permitted to attend by the Communists did attend. Mindszenty could not attend. Wojtyla could.


KenGordon wrote:
That one Bishop whose name we know at present was the Ukranian Archbishop Volodymyr Sterniuk, C.SS.R., now deceased, who had been in a KGB prison for 14 years. At the time he was inteviewed in 1998, he was in Canada. He was around 90 years old at that time, and had full possession of his faculties. In fact, he said many humorous things during the interview and our interviewer liked him a lot.

Archbishop Sterniuk was asked specifically about Roncalli, and he stated categorically that he was not the pope. He also said that JPII was "a devil".


Well, this is evidence of what Sterniuk thought in the '90s. De Castro Mayer thought JP2 wasn't pope in the 80s. But that doesn't tell us what he thought about John XXIII in the 60s.

Mindszenty, who was under no illusions whatsoever about the Communists, requested and received a papal blessing from Roncalli for his mother's birthday circa 1960, and mentions this with evident pleasure in his Memoirs, published in the 70s. On the other hand, his attitude towards Montini was decidedly negative.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:49 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Reply to Vince, where it belongs...
John Lane wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
It turns out that we know the name of only one of those, since all those who did not attend on this basis were behind the Iron Curtain, and we have not yet been able to ferret out their names.

They did not attend for at least two reasons:


Who is "they"? Those who did not attend for any reason, or those who did not attend because they thought Roncalli was not pope?


Neither. "They"are the Eastern European bishops behind the Iron Curtain.

Quote:
In any case, only those permitted to attend by the Communists did attend. Mindszenty could not attend. Wojtyla could.


Yee haw! Exactly. :D

KenGordon wrote:
That one Bishop whose name we know at present was the Ukranian Archbishop Volodymyr Sterniuk, C.SS.R., now deceased, who had been in a KGB prison for 14 years. At the time he was inteviewed in 1998, he was in Canada. He was around 90 years old at that time, and had full possession of his faculties. In fact, he said many humorous things during the interview and our interviewer liked him a lot.

Archbishop Sterniuk was asked specifically about Roncalli, and he stated categorically that he was not the pope. He also said that JPII was "a devil".


Quote:
Well, this is evidence of what Sterniuk thought in the '90s.


Well, I agree that is ONE way of looking at it. However, apparently he said, "...at the time...", which would have been in 1958. I.e., he SAID it to our interviewer in the '90s, but was referring to 1958, "...at that time..."

Quote:
De Castro Mayer thought JP2 wasn't pope in the 80s. But that doesn't tell us what he thought about John XXIII in the 60s.


True. But we aren't talking about De Castro Mayer.

Quote:
Mindszenty, who was under no illusions whatsoever about the Communists, requested and received a papal blessing from Roncalli for his mother's birthday circa 1960, and mentions this with evident pleasure in his Memoirs, published in the 70s. On the other hand, his attitude towards Montini was decidedly negative.


Yes, but each Bishop is an individual. What we have here is "guilt by association", or in this case, "proof by association". I don't think that is valid, do you?

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:50 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Reply to Vince, where it belongs...
KenGordon wrote:
Yes, but each Bishop is an individual. What we have here is "guilt by association", or in this case, "proof by association". I don't think that is valid, do you?


Of course not. I'm just highlighting the implausibility of the story. Now, let's get the data or drop the whole thing.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:52 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Reply to Vince, where it belongs...
John Lane wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
Yes, but each Bishop is an individual. What we have here is "guilt by association", or in this case, "proof by association". I don't think that is valid, do you?


Of course not. I'm just highlighting the implausibility of the story. Now, let's get the data or drop the whole thing.


OK. I'll try...

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:08 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:50 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Rock Island, Illinois, USA
New post 
Ken,

My mistake. There is a lot of information being presented which you have gleaned from various sources. Whether it is from the DVD or other information, however, corroboration is necessary before it can be accepted as relevant to the issue or it remains in the realm of hearsay.

Chris


Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:22 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post 
Chris Browne wrote:
Ken,

My mistake. There is a lot of information being presented which you have gleaned from various sources. Whether it is from the DVD or other information, however, corroboration is necessary before it can be accepted as relevant to the issue or it remains in the realm of hearsay.

Chris


Agreed. Perhaps I could send you a copy of it, so you could view it yourself? :?

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:10 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Ken Gordon wrote:
You, Robert, appear to me to be one who is too complacent, too insulated, to understand the danger, or even admit the possibility of its existence.


Ken,

1. You don't even know me.
2. Complacent about what?
2. What "danger" are you speaking of here?
3. Admit the possibility of what?

I think you're being awful cryptic. I'll readily admit that you and I do not understand each other and I believe it is because the principles we apply are vastly different. This area of principle has already been explored and I can't see why you can't get it through your thick skull! :wink: :)

I certainly do believe there are evil people in the world...but I also think that there are many, many more men who are simply indifferent. I do not think I am surrounded by evil men every moment of my day...do you?

Robert


Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:26 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post 
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
You, Robert, appear to me to be one who is too complacent, too insulated, to understand the danger, or even admit the possibility of its existence.


Ken,

1. You don't even know me.
2. Complacent about what?
2. What "danger" are you speaking of here?
3. Admit the possibility of what?

I think you're being awful cryptic. I'll readily admit that you and I do not understand each other and I believe it is because the principles we apply are vastly different. This area of principle has already been explored and I can't see why you can't get it through your thick skull! :wink: :)

I certainly do believe there are evil people in the world...but I also think that there are many, many more men who are simply indifferent. I do not think I am surrounded by evil men every moment of my day...do you?


Hmmm...well, you could be right. I think it sort of depends on your definition of "evil". I do think that most of those around me at work during the day are most probably in a state of mortal sin, and that their guardian angels aren't pleased. If I stop to think about it, it makes me sad. None of them have the sacraments of the Church to help them. Most aren't Catholics. In fact, most aren't Christians of any form. Most of them never think of their souls, and if I bring up religion in any manner, they all act as though I'm "...one of those stupid "believers". How COULD you be so dumb, Gordon?" Most of those I work with or around are what I term Ultra-liberals. Liberalism is a mental disease, as anyone who has been around them long enough recognizes.

And those I work around who aren't ultra-liberals, don't let the thought of religion interfere with the way they work or think.

They "compartmentalize" their brains. It is a form of schizophrenia.

I have to deal with a LOT of Mormons. In fact, the entire state goverment of Idaho is FULL of them. We practically live in a theocracy here. 90% of the department heads, deans, and administrators at the university where I work are Mormons, as are many professors.

Those who aren't Mormons, are so liberal and "politically correct" they stink.

Fun. A constant battle. It makes me tired.

As far as we know, my family and I are the only traditionally minded Catholics within at least a 75 mile radius. We ARE the only ones in our city and several nearby ones.

That's why, for me, it is so refreshing to be able to argue with REAL Catholics...like YOU Robert. :D

BTW, I MEANT the offer of the DVD...

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:58 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Concerning the Abp. Sterniuk information.
I had a long talk with our source this afternoon, and I misunderstood much of what I was told by him yesterday.

First of all, the exchange between the Abp and our researchers (there were two of them there at the time) took place at a public social occasion, or dinner, of the Ukranian Brotherhood.

The Abp. gave his reply to the question about JPII in a rather loud voice (i.e. "He is a devil"), and there was an IMMEDIATE, and very hostile reaction from everyone else at the meeting.

Apparently, contrary to what I thought and contrary to what I posted here, MOST of the Ukranian's in Canada both at that time and even now, are sedeplenists, not, as I thought, sedevacantists.

In fact, the exchange with Abp Sterniuk made it nearly impossible for the next 8 years for our researcher to even talk with Abp. Beretsky, who was so angry at Sterniuk's remark, and the fact that our researchers agreed with him rather emphatically, that he wouldn't even answer any request to talk with him.

There is ONE Ukranian priest, a Fr. Ostropovich (sp?), who is on the same page as we are (i.e., myself and our other researchers). He will not use the Ukranian missal when he offers Mass, but only the Old Slavonik one. He does switch to English at the Una Cum, saying out loud, "...known only to God...". Fr. Ostropovich is very old, around 94, and is in constant terrible pain, which he hides pretty well when you talk with him. Another one of our people who lives in Canada is in constant contact with him and they are good friends.

Concerning the Roncalli issue: I was wrong to attribute that information as coming from Abp. Sterniuk at the meeting referenced above. It came from a different source, when referring to those Ukranian prelates and clergy who were in Communist prisons at the time of the Coucil. I have not yet tracked down the name of that source.

However, it DOES appear that Abp. Sterniuk agreed with that information.

In any case, there was NO recording of the exchange, and NO transcript of it.

So YOU can consign it to the black hole. I won't, however, since it is consistent with what we have learned from other sources.

I apologize for my mistake.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:18 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Concerning the Abp. Sterniuk information.
KenGordon wrote:
I apologize for my mistake.


Dear Ken,

I admire, as always, your honesty and humility.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:43 am
Profile E-mail
New post 
Admiration from me, and an interesting topic this is.


Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:51 am

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Mistake.
I am researching the source of the info on Roncalli. I have also been told, quite pointedly I might add, that I have been spending too much time here lately. :D :D :D

However, like MacArthur, I shall return.

God bless you all. I love you all like my own brothers and sister.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:58 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Rev. Franicis J. Connell:
Certainty of the Pope's Status

Question: What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church – that is, that he became a member of the Church through valid baptism, and that he was validly elected Pope?

Answer: Of course, we have human moral certainty that the reigning Pontiff was validly elected in conclave and accepted the office of Bishop of Rome, thus becoming head of the universal Church. The unanimous consensus of a large group of Cardinals composing the electoral body gave us this assurance. And we also have human moral certainty that the reigning Pontiff was validly baptized, since there is a record to that effect in the baptismal register of the church in which the sacrament was administered. We have the same type of certainty that any bishop is the true spiritual head of the particular see over which he presides. This type of certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.

But in the case of the Pope we have a higher grade of certainty – a certainty that excludes not merely the prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In other words, we have infallible certainty that the present Sovereign Pontiff has been incorporated into the Church by a valid baptism and has been validly elected head of the universal Church. For if we did not have infallible assurance that the ruling Pontiff is truly in the eyes of God the chief teacher of the Church of Christ, how could we accept as infallibly true his solemn pronouncements? This is an example of a fact that is not contained in the deposit of revelation but is so intimately connected with revelation that it must be within the scope of the Church's magisterial authority to declare it infallibly. 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.



It appears from Rev. Connell's response to the question of Paul VI's papacy that universal, peaceful acceptance of a true pope consists basically in that acceptance by the electoral body of Cardinals. Is this true?

Since any agitation shown so far has to do with VII and not with Paul VI's validity as pope, using your own criteria of: several years, 2 or 3 Cardinals, 4 or 5 bishops, 20 to 30 priests, some 'thousands' of laymen; could you please give evidence of cardinals, bishops, priests, laymen demonstrating lack of peaceful acceptance of Paul VI's election to the papacy? I'm not being obstinate here, but someone, somewhere has to show certain demonstrable evidence of a lack of peaceful acceptance of Paul VI's valid election (and NOT THE ISSUE OF VATICAN II), perhaps, using your own criteria, not mine: several years, 2 or 3 cardinals, 4 or 5 bishops, 20 to 30 priests, some thousands of laymen.

The coincidence of the election of Paul VI and the Council need to be addressed separately. Peaceful, universal acceptance of Paul VI's election as pope or the lack thereof, needs to be separated from the agitation of the Council. The issue of a Council causing agitation is a well-known phenomenon in the Church; spoken of many times over the course of centuries. It would not take much to bring forth evidence of 'lack of peace' regarding Vatican Council I. Factions were certainly present there, and caused definite unrest. The issue of the 'lack of peaceful acceptance' of Paul VI's election, not VII, needs to have some solid evidence shown. The onus is on those that contend Paul VI was never pope to show that with clear and certain evidence, and not innuendo or attribution to Vatican Council II agitation.

Unless I'm missing something in this thread, I have seen no evidence given from notable, knowledgeable hierarchy or clergy of any number, or any numbers of laity that demonstrate lack of peaceful, acceptance of Paul VI's election. I've seen nothing to refute Silveira's unhappy conclusion: Paul VI was a valid pope. I've seen statements showing, at that time, agitation, lack of peace concerning VII; not Paul VI. If nothing is forthcoming, I think we are left with the unhappy circumstance of either rejecting St. Robert Bellarmine's probable opinion that a universally accepted pope would never become a public, manifest heretic; or accepting Paul VI as pope.

By the by, Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, having retired from the American Ecclesiastical Review and leaving the Council after the 1st session (I believe) was assigned to St. Patrick's Church in Chicopee, MA (as Mike has indicated). Msgr. Fenton died unexpectedly (although in somewhat ill-health) in mid-1969 (July, I believe). At no time, from what I can gather, did he impugn the validity of Paul VI. Prior to the opening of VII, he had already expressed misgivings about the coming Council and its probablity of going awry, if people did not pray for a successful conclusion. I can find nothing regarding Msgr. Fenton and his non-acceptance of Popes' John XXIII or Paul VI papacies. I add this only because I place great trust in Msgr. Fenton's orthodoxy and love of Holy Mother Church. I suspect Our Lord spared him the additional great suffering of the 1st Sunday of Advent, 1969.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:06 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 35
New post 
It's quite possible that this has been adequately discussed in the past, and if that's the case, please bear with me. My line of thinking is essentially what Teresa just described. I simply cannot conclude that the world's Catholics did not peacefully accept Paul VI as pope. Of course to simply say that Paul VI's adherents were already non-Catholics and that subsequently such adherence proves nothing, well, solves nothing, since the onus is clearly on those claiming Paul VI's non-papacy. What do you all think concerning this? I don't post very often, but lurk daily, and am thankful for this place since I've learned an awful lot and charity reigns supreme. Help out this young confused guy! :D


Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:46 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Matt wrote:
It's quite possible that this has been adequately discussed in the past, and if that's the case, please bear with me. My line of thinking is essentially what Teresa just described. I simply cannot conclude that the world's Catholics did not peacefully accept Paul VI as pope. Of course to simply say that Paul VI's adherents were already non-Catholics and that subsequently such adherence proves nothing, well, solves nothing, since the onus is clearly on those claiming Paul VI's non-papacy. What do you all think concerning this? I don't post very often, but lurk daily, and am thankful for this place since I've learned an awful lot and charity reigns supreme. Help out this young confused guy! :D


Matt,

I believe the onus is on those who claim peaceful acceptance is the one proof that trumps all other facts regarding Paul VI. I don't see how one can claim that there was a peaceful acceptance...nor adherence....and if you do claim that this proves that Paul VI was a true pope, then there are a whole lot of other things you need to explain that are in conflict concerning things theologically certain.

Robert


Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:40 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 35
New post 
Thanks for the response, Robert. I certainly wasn't trying to imply that the claim that Catholics universally and peacefully adhered to Paul VI as Supreme Pontiff doesn't cause other difficulties; however, it seems absurd to claim that Catholics did not adhere to him. How do sedevacantists overcome this difficulty?


Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:36 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Matt wrote:
... however, it seems absurd to claim that Catholics did not adhere to him. How do sedevacantists overcome this difficulty?


The adherence required is peaceful adherence. It was anything but that, as the quotes from Monsignor Fenton showed (if anybody is so uninformed as not to know how violently Vatican II was run).

Teresa points out that councils have historically been times of some disturbance or discord, which is true. But V2 was unique in that it was the only (apparently) general council in which the heterodox party was supported by the pope. Or, to put it another way, the good Catholic fathers had to defend the Faith by overcoming the efforts of the pope. There is no way successfully to disguise this - it's a question of plain fact, accepted by all parties. The only thing to do is to explain it - or explain it away.

Our explanation is that Paul VI was not pope and the opposition to his agenda by the orthodox men of the time was sufficient external discord to overcome the claim that Paul VI was peacefully accepted as pope. Those traditionalists who differ with us argue that the acceptance was really peaceful - a very dubious proposition on any reading - whilst also celebrating the resistance of those who strenuously and openly opposed his efforts. The two things surely can't be thought to be compatible.

St. Robert Bellarmine: "Now, a [heretic] Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head?"

The answer is that we cannot avoid our own head. If we avoid him, he isn't our head. If we resist his agenda in order to defend the Faith, he isn't our head. If we resist his agenda in order to defend the Faith, then we are not "peacefully adhering" to him.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:43 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 39
New post 
Hi,

If I may, I'd like to posit a possible argument for Montini's valid election which is quite close to the argument from the Church's "peaceful acceptance", but very much distinct -- that is, an argument based on the ordinary universal magisterium.

Just to refresh peoples memory: the Church's ordinary universal magisterium (OUM) is the entire episcopal body throughout the world teaching a doctrine to be held by the faithful as definitive. As it has been pointed on another thread, the infallibility of OUM is independent of time. To quote your own words John from the other thread: "The mark of the universal ordinary magisterium is merely that the episcopate agree in binding the faithful on a point. That is all."

Applied to Monitini's election: at the moment when they announced "Habemus Papam" and Cardinal Monitini was revealed as a 'Successor of St. Peter', the entire episcopacy accepted him at that moment as Pope and consequently agreed that all the faithful are bound to recognize him as such.

Picture to yourself that moment when Montini appeared on the balcony at St. Peter's square, and the reaction of the entire episcopacy. Picture to yourself the next day when all the bishops of the world said Mass for the faithful and included his name in the canon and taught (and acted) as if the faithful had a new pope.

If at any time Montini was an impostor at those precious few moments after his election, the Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Church would have defected. It would be as if a fatal cancer had spread throughout the Mystical Body of Christ, when in fact Christ promised such would never happen.

The solutions I see to this are only two:

1) Montini was validly elected at the time and had fallen from office only later on.

OR

2) We need to re-examine our pristine idea of how the Universal Ordinary Magisterium acts in teaching the faithful infallibly.

Any thoughts?


Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:22 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 396 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.