It is currently Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:55 am




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

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
Ken Gordon wrote:
Coming from Pope Paul IV? Part of which was included in Canon Law (188)? I don't understand how this can be possible.


That part's not included in the Code. But I don't see the difficulty anyway. If God, via St. Paul, can say something equally impossible to make a point, then what's the problem?

John Lane wrote:
I used the word "dogma" above simply because 1) I really don't know WHAT to call it, and 2) because it seems to me that you are, essentially, using it as such. Therefore, call it what you like.

Perhaps it feels like it's being treated as a dogma because you are not habituated to read and believe the theologians. This is further indicated by your statement that you don't trust "modern" theologians except Billot. But Ken, with respect, you obviously haven't read them. If you had, you'd know that they agree on 99% of everything, which is what one would expect since theology is a science. In this sense it is like chemistry or any other proper science. You'd also be aware from reading what the real areas of dispute are, what is not settled and may legitimately be considered a matter of opinion.

As you have said, it's pointless trying to find a theologian who rejects the point we are discussing (although you will find plenty of older ones who wrote before this point was clarified and became common doctrine who have other things to say). The thing to do is to understand it, which means understanding the reasons that underpin it, and then apply it to the facts.

And when I say "facts" I mean demonstrated, clear, facts. Suppositions, rumours, unclear factual claims, etc., may be useful insofar as they can fit a hypothetical notion (which is all the Siri theory is), but unless the unstable status of the hypothesis is kept ruthlessly in view, the end result will be a passionate belief in something which is not proved, with the concomitant effect of a tendency to reject actual truths which don't appear to fit the hypothesis. And yes, that's what the Siri theory proponents look like to me. To me it's like the very common belief amongst worldly people in aliens. The lack of evidence becomes merely a further reason to believe it, the argument being that if it weren't true why would "they" be hiding the evidence from us?


Quote:
As I have said more than once, I suspect you are applying it to, at least Roncalli's election, but also to lesser extent to Montini's, much too soon, at the very least.

No problem, and that's a legitimate point of view, but it's one thing to say you're not certain yet, and it's another to protest strongly somebody else's view without having a clear argument.

Quote:
This is one reason I have asked not only you, but also everyone else reading these exchanges, to describe a way for Satan to engineer an election within a real and legitimate conclave which would produce a man who would appear to "the whole Church" to be the real pontiff, but who would NOT be under the protection of the Holy Ghost against error as a real pope would be.

And I have, so far, including this time, asked this three times. So far, it has been completely ignored.

I can only speak for myself, but I am extremely busy, Ken, and if there's a thesis with supporting data just present it please. I don't understand why you want others to try and guess what you already have in your head. It's the oddest procedure, can't you see that?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:23 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
John Lane wrote:
I can only speak for myself, but I am extremely busy, Ken,


Oh. OK. I see. You can be "extremely busy" but I don't dare. OK. I understand.

John Lane wrote:
and if there's a thesis with supporting data


...only from accepted theologians, I presume...

John Lane wrote:
just present it please.


OK.

John Lane wrote:
I don't understand why you want others to try and guess what you already have in your head.


Now let's see if I can explain this in a way that you will not misconstrue: I presented it this way since I know that if someone else comes up with the same idea, then it will have far more weight with you, and probably everyone else here, than if I presented it. Another reason I chose this method was that it will call into question your interpretation and application of The Statement in discussion.

However, I must confess that there is not much support from accepted theologians for my scenario. I doubt if they ever thought of it. In fact, neither did I.

John Lane wrote:
It's the oddest procedure, can't you see that?


No. I can't. Why can't you put your brilliant mind to work on it? I assumed, probably wrongly again, that it would have been easy for you.

Oh. Let me attempt to clarify one more matter which you are wrong about: I support and believe in the so-called Siri Theory because in my "limited study" over the course of the past 50 years on the issues which presently effect the Church, it is the only solution to the present crisis which does not violate either the indefectibility of the Church, nor its visibility, whereas, again in my opinion, your thesis of sedevacantism does both.

When I said I didn't trust modern theologians above, I meant specifically, Journet, who accepted the Red Hat from an antipope, and I distrust him only because he did this. And, no, I have not read most theologians.

I have been extremely....oh wait....I can't do that...sorry.

Lastly, have you yet read the documentation I provided over the past few days which I posted in support of some of my more "unsupported" statements over the years?

With all respect, it is obvious you have not.

Oh. One more thing: I defy you to find any statement I have ever made on this forum wherein I contradicted either an accepted theologian's teaching, or a doctrine of the Church. All I have ever done is to contradict your interpretation and/or application thereof.

And lastly, although I have searched, undoubtedly desultorily, in your opinion, your entire website, I have yet to find the document by Billot that started this "discussion", although I most readily admit that I have not read every posting to the forum either. Perhaps it is there.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Last edited by Ken Gordon on Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:05 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
Who may vote for the pope.

"Canon 223: § 1. These persons are called to the Council and have the right to vote there:
1° The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, including those who are not Bishops;
2° The Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and resident Bishops, including those not consecrated;
3° Abbots or prelates nullius;
4° The Abbot Primate, the Superior Abbots of the monastic Congregations, the Superiors general of the exempt clerical congregations (but not of other religions), unless the decree of convocation provides otherwise;
§ 2. Also the titular Bishops, called to the Council, get to vote, unless it is explicitly stated otherwise in the summons.
§ 3. Theologians and canon lawyers, if invited to the Council, only have a consultative vote.

This includes all Bishops (even unconsecrated ones) who have jurisdiction. Bishops without jurisdiction cannot vote.

I have yet to refind the discussion I read on the internet a week or two ago wherein it was stated that some of those called to a council may vote, but those votes are not counted. Perhaps that discussion concerned "consultative votes", as mentioned in § 3 above.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:25 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
St. Alphonsus says: " It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; It is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such an acceptance he would become the True Pontiff" (Verita della Fede. Vol VIII. p720). The same is affirmed by Cardinal Billot (Tract. De. Eccl. Christi. Tom 1,pp612-613).

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:52 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
Ken Gordon wrote:
§ 2. Also the titular Bishops, called to the Council, get to vote, unless it is explicitly stated otherwise in the summons.
...
This includes all Bishops (even unconsecrated ones) who have jurisdiction. Bishops without jurisdiction cannot vote."


Well, they can vote if they are called to the council and the summons doesn't maintain the automatic exclusion that usually pertains (precisely because they lack jurisdiction).

So you see why I say that the invalidly consecrated Catholic ordinary, appointed by Paul VI (validly, by supplied jurisdiction) may well be a legitimate papal elector. I think this is the point you were disputing, and thanks for checking to see whether you were right about the specific point at issue.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:10 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
John Lane wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
§ 2. Also the titular Bishops, called to the Council, get to vote, unless it is explicitly stated otherwise in the summons.
...
This includes all Bishops (even unconsecrated ones) who have jurisdiction. Bishops without jurisdiction cannot vote."


Well, they can vote if they are called to the council and the summons doesn't maintain the automatic exclusion that usually pertains (precisely because they lack jurisdiction).


...as the Canon states...

John Lane wrote:
So you see why I say that the invalidly consecrated Catholic ordinary, appointed by Paul VI (validly, by supplied jurisdiction) may well be a legitimate papal elector. I think this is the point you were disputing


No. It was not. Of that, I am certain.

At this point, I am not sure what I was disputing, if, in fact I was disputing anything at all. I had read your opinion (stated above), and my sensus catholicus did not find anything particularly alarming about it. I believe I was simply quoting something I had read on the internet about it, which I can no longer find. I.e., that certain electors can be called to the council and can vote but their votes would not be counted. At this point I suspect that whomever I quoted was referring to what the Canon calls, "a consultative vote".

John Lane wrote:
and thanks for checking to see whether you were right about the specific point at issue.


Sure.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:45 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
Ken Gordon wrote:
John Lane wrote:
I can only speak for myself, but I am extremely busy, Ken,


Oh. OK. I see. You can be "extremely busy" but I don't dare. OK. I understand.


Well you might recall that you stated the following:
Ken Gordon wrote:
I was replying at that time to a quotation you provided from some well-known and well-respected Cardinal, whose name I have since forgotten, which stated something to the effect, "....the peaceful acceptance by the entire Church of the election of a man proves its legitimacy..." or something very close to that. At the time you published the quote, I, of course, believed every word, as I had, up to that time, believed every word you have ever written. However, I finally dug out the exact document you quoted from, only to find that this same Cardinal wrote several paragraphs before the one you quoted, that this "...peaceful acceptance..." would only be valid if the election could not be proven to have been suspect...or something to that effect. I was quite surprised that you had not mentioned that.


But you didn't post the proof, so I went off and found the text I presumed you meant. But you didn't withdraw the claim or even thank me for spending what was actually several hours doing something which I didn't need and which by rights was your job. So yes, I'm not inclined to do it any more.

Here's the posts I created for you that time. viewtopic.php?p=10102#p10102

Quote:
And lastly, although I have searched, undoubtedly desultorily, in your opinion, your entire website, I have yet to find the document by Billot that started this "discussion", although I most readily admit that I have not read every posting to the forum either. Perhaps it is there.


See the link above. If the Billot text there isn't it, then I don't know what you were talking about.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:59 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Comments from a non-Sedevacantist
Ken, here is what you wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
John Lane wrote:
but in reality he hasn't, what effect does that have on his possession of jurisdiction? Does he lose it automatically, or does he retain it (because he has complied with the law, even though his effort has been frustrated)?


To me that argument is specious. We have to look at the facts. It is pretty clear to me: he loses his office, without question. I think in certain instances in our discussions, some of us tend to get a bit too pedantic. :D


And:
Ken Gordon wrote:
Nonetheless, the very fact that none of those men "ordained" with Montini's invalid rite are really bishops means that every man they "ordained" remains a layman.

Well no, not a layman, a cleric with jurisdiction but without the proper degree of holy orders.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:04 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
John Lane wrote:
Well you might recall


Perfectly, as a matter of fact...

John Lane wrote:
that you stated the following:
Ken Gordon wrote:
I was replying at that time to a quotation you provided from some well-known and well-respected Cardinal, whose name I have since forgotten, which stated something to the effect, "....the peaceful acceptance by the entire Church of the election of a man proves its legitimacy..." or something very close to that. At the time you published the quote, I, of course, believed every word, as I had, up to that time, believed every word you have ever written. However, I finally dug out the exact document you quoted from, only to find that this same Cardinal wrote several paragraphs before the one you quoted, that this "...peaceful acceptance..." would only be valid if the election could not be proven to have been suspect...or something to that effect. I was quite surprised that you had not mentioned that.


But you didn't post the proof,


The forum had just restarted and it had been so long since we last discussed this that I had to dredge it out of my ancient memory-banks.

John Lane wrote:
so I went off and found the text I presumed you meant. But you didn't withdraw the claim or even thank me for spending what was actually several hours doing something which I didn't need and which by rights was your job.


I had absolutely no idea you had done so. How could I? If I had, for one second, thought that it would have taken you much more than about 15 seconds to find it, I never would have mentioned it.

John Lane wrote:
So yes, I'm not inclined to do it any more.


and I don't blame you.

John Lane wrote:
Here's the posts I created for you that time. viewtopic.php?p=10102#p10102

See the link above. If the Billot text there isn't it, then I don't know what you were talking about.


This quote is obviously from AFTER the part about "...peaceful acceptance by the whole church..." The part I finally remembered reading, and remembered WHERE I read it (somewhere on your website) was several paragraphs BEFORE that part.

Furthermore, I did not mean to imply by what I said above that you purposely did not mention what I am referring to: I could and would never insult you in such a way: what I meant was that you possibly either didn't recognize its significance, or you interpret its importance in a different way than I do, or you possibly simply missed it, or some other completely innocent reason persists.

If that is what you think, then I most humbly apologize for allowing you to think that I would insult you so, and in fact, I am somewhat insulted in return that you would think I could possibly be so ungentlemanly and unCatholic.

Secondly, I have just spent the better part of this entire day searching the internet for Billot's "Tractatus Ecclesiae Christi" in English and have not found it, although I did find a complete copy of it in Latin, which I downloaded.

Therefore, my only recourse to continue this discussion to a successful conclusion is to find what I read several years ago.

And I most certainly do NOT expect you to find it for me!!!!

If I cannot find it again, then WE must simply drop this entire discussion.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:20 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
Dear Ken,

I didn't think you deliberately insulted me. :)

Did you click on the link above? How can you ask how you could have known that I posted the text for you, when I posted them with a note to you saying something like "Ken, here's the quote"?

Anyway, here's the quote again (and I had added the St. Alphonsus one too, as you see):

Quote:
Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope heretic], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and infallible providence of Christ: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, and “Behold I shall be with you all days”. For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows, as will become even more clear by what we shall say later. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions. Let this be said in passing against those who, trying to justify certain attempts at schism made in the time of Alexander VI, allege that its promoter broadcast that he had most certain proofs, which he would reveal to a General Council, of the heresy of Alexander. Putting aside here other reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff. For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic at least in that sense in which the fact of being a heretic takes away one’s membership in the Church and in consequence deprives one, by the very nature of things, of the pontifical power and of any other ordinary jurisdiction.”

On this same “sanatio in radice” by virtue of the acceptance of the Pope by the whole Church, Saint Alphonse de Liguori writes, in less heated but perhaps even more incisive terms:

“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But if during a certain time he had not been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff”.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:04 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
John Lane wrote:
Dear Ken,

I didn't think you deliberately insulted me. :)

Did you click on the link above?


Of course: and read it.

John Lane wrote:
How can you ask how you could have known that I posted the text for you,


That is not what I said: I said "How could I have known you spent (several) hours finding it, in order for me to thank you for the effort?"

This is simply another clear example of our seemingly unique ability to misunderstand one another.

John Lane wrote:
when I posted them with a note to you saying something like "Ken, here's the quote"?


...which I simply could not find...again. I do remember your saying the above: I simply could not find it again.

John Lane wrote:
Anyway, here's the quote again (and I had added the St. Alphonsus one too, as you see):


Yes. I have the St. Alphonsus quotation, and the quotation from Billot is still not the one to which I was referring.

PLEASE do not look for it any longer. I will find it. It is, or was, on your website.

Let me attempt to make clear, again, what I have stated at least once before: I have no doubt about the two quotations you just posted: I agree with them, they make perfect sense, they are logical, they are reasonable, I believe them, I have nothing to dispute about them, they disturb in no way at all my "Sensus Catholicus".

What I am disputing with you about is historical, not doctrinal. I am disputing your interpretation of them (and others like them) and your application of the above to the situation with Roncalli and Montini, both of whom, at least to my satisfaction, stunk of crime, and (again to my satisfaction) could never have been true popes.

If my dispute with you on this issue is truly historical, and truly not doctrinal, then all the accepted theologians' opinions in the world could not possibly have any effect at all on such historical facts as we can determine to be true.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:34 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Comments from a non-Sedevacantist
From my young friend in Belgium:
Quote:
Excerpt from Triomphe du St-Siége et de l'Église, by Maurus Cappelari, before he was Pope Gregory XVI:

"... l'Eglise doit toujours subsister telle que J-C l'a établie, et par conséquent maintenir toujours et malgré toutes les attaques la forme essentielle de son gouvernement, mais cette perpétuité ne se rencontre plus dans la partie des Pasteurs qui ne résiste pas aux innovations : donc il ne faut la chercher que dans la partie qui les repousse, celle-là seule sera donc la véritable Eglise."

"... The Church must always subsist in the way that Jesus Christ has established her, and by consequence maintain always and despite all attacks the essential form of her government, but this perpetuity is not found any longer in the group of Pastors who do not resist innovations: thus she must not be sought but in the group that suppresses [these innovations], and only this [group] would be the true Church."

When I read something like this, my conclusion is that it is safer to say that there is an organized and ordered, though eclipsed Catholic Hierarchy, rather than to say that this Hierarchy consists of a few elderly bishops and clerics of the Roman diocese scattered across the globe, consecrated/ordained/incardinated during the reign of Pope Pius XII.

The sede impedita thesis gives us a functioning and active Hierarchy in an uninterrupted and legitimate succession from the Apostles. We just don't know who and where they are at the moment.

... theological theses which are good in themselves must also be applied correctly. We are only lay men and none of us has the charism of infallibility.


John has mentioned at least once that the Church can be in eclipse...

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:52 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
Ken Gordon wrote:
This is simply another clear example of our seemingly unique ability to misunderstand one another.

:)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:13 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:35 pm
Posts: 11
New post Cardinal Siri/"Gregory XVII"
I am reading a lot of stuff on the internet on the possibility of Cardinal Siri's papacy- that is he was legally elected, then the masonic forces that be basically threatened him or kidnapped him to step aside, while still being the pope. That way, these Vatican 2 antipopes could openly spout their heresey and committ apostasy without the interference of the holy ghost. To me, this hypothesis makes perfect sense and explains a lot. There is also a vietnamese priest named Fr. Khoat who spoke personally with Cardinal Siri befoer his death. Fr. Khoat confronted Cardinal Siri angrily and told him basically that if he would have consercarted Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Vietnam would not have gone communist. Cardinal Siri then let a few tears go. According to Fr. Khoat, Cardinal Siri did admit he was the pope all along. It seems a little suspicious to me conisdering there were no other witnesses to collaborate Fr. Khoat's allegations.

What is the general consensus on this issue around here?


Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:06 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 am
Posts: 98
New post Re: Cardinal Siri/"Gregory XVII"
The theory is appealing because it provides the explanation for what we are living through. Unfortunately, there's not enough evidence to prove it.


Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:19 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Cardinal Siri/"Gregory XVII"
RJS wrote:
The theory is appealing because it provides the explanation for what we are living through. Unfortunately, there's not enough evidence to prove it.


Yes. We proponents of the sede-impeditist thesis (incorrectly, possibly sarcastically, and for a long time called "The Siri Theory") agree that there is very little "hard evidence" for our position, and details are very hard to find. After all, it would be in the very best interests of what I term, "the nefarious forces" to keep as much evidence hidden or obscure as possible.

However, we have accumulated considerable circumstantial evidence which appears to us to support our thesis. This, after over 30 years of research.

Besides, we feel that the sedeimpeditist thesis correctly answers some questions that plague the sedevacantist thesis. We believe, for instance, that our thesis does not violate, or rather, call into question, either the visibility nor the indefectibility of the Church, while the sede thesis at least implies that the Church has lost both.

Although we agree on many issues that are a result of the application of the sedevacantist thesis, we disagree on at least the one very fundamental position of that thesis: the existence of a 53+ year interregnum with no end in sight. To us, this is simply impossible. It most certainly has absolutely no precedent whatever in the history of the Church.

We "sede-impeditists" also agree amongst ourselves that it is completely understandable, given the obvious and clear evidence, why those who hold the sedevacantist thesis would do so, and would have very little to argue with them about, given the evidence, and their interpretation of it, that exists.

Does this help?

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:43 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:02 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Spokane
New post Re: Cardinal Siri/"Gregory XVII"
Quote:
However, we have accumulated considerable circumstantial evidence which appears to us to support our thesis. This, after over 30 years of research.


Ken, where might I find this research so that I can read more?


Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:49 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Cardinal Siri/"Gregory XVII"
Lorraine wrote:
Quote:
However, we have accumulated considerable circumstantial evidence which appears to us to support our thesis. This, after over 30 years of research.


Ken, where might I find this research so that I can read more?


We have published some of it on our website: http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/

However, the vast majority of it has never been effectively published, at least not by us, as we are not the original researchers on it.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:48 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
Sigh.... :(

I MUST be finally getting old: I went back to re-read some of my own posts and they confuse ME! :cry:

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:51 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
All right: John has asked me to present my scenario, and, although considering all the very competent folks on this forum, I had hoped that one or more of you would come up with it. Since that has not happened, I herewith present it. Please forgive any typos or improper sentence construction. I was very tired when I wrote this, and somewhat rushed, but I think it will suffice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Satan Falsified the 1958 Conclave.

This scenario was worked out, not by me, but by someone with whom we have been in fairly close contact for at least the last 20 years. When it was first presented to me, I was shocked. Chills ran up and down my spine. Yet it had the ring of truth to it. Since then, I have thought and thought about it, trying to find a hole in it, and so far, have found none. It is all possible, and given the history of the Church since 1958, it appears to me to be correct.

Malachi Martin, in a personal telephone call to him, was apprised of it, and was shocked into silence when he heard it. He had no reply. Perhaps he simply thought it so odd that he couldn't say anything, but given his later reactions and his book, "The Keys of This Blood", I doubt that.

We believe this scenario to be not only possible, but extremely probable that it is completely accurate, and that, in fact, it did take place, not once, but several times, beginning in the Papal Conclave of 1958.

We also believe that it is so diabolically clever that it could have only been devised by Satan, and that it took at least 300 years of his work in order to make it come to fruition.

In order for this plan to be effective, it required considerable groundwork.

First, beginning in about 1710 A.D., the secret societies, of which the Masonic Order is the chief, had to begin to rear its monstrous head. It then grew to its present level of power over the next 300 years. Few can doubt that through its members and minions, it controls most of the power of the world.

Secondly, enough validly ordained and validly consecrated Catholic prelates had to become perverted enough to join this Order or its allies, and become dedicated to Masonic principles, one of the first of which is the complete subversion of the Catholic Church, its greatest enemy. It then worked to substitute an organization, the VC2 or Conciliar Church, for the Catholic Church, and, according to the Masonic document, "The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita", it worked to gain a Pope “according to our wants”.

The Masonic Orders tried several times to engineer the election of such a true Pope. They thought they succeeded in this endeavour at least twice to my knowledge, the last being the saintly Pope Pius IX, Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti.

When he was elected on 16 June 1846, the newspapers belonging to the Masonic forces all over the world rejoiced. At his death, 32 years later, those same Masonic forces, due to his constant and unremitting warfare against them, attacked his funeral cortege and attempted to throw his body into the Tiber River. Through them and their influence, he became one of the most hated popes in history. Hated, at least, by his, and our, enemies.

In an allocution of the same Pius IX, printed in the Acta Apostolici Sedis, vol. 1, beginning on page 290, partially entitled, “Circa Occultas Sectas”, near the end, the Pope writes, “...the leaders, at least, of the secret societies receive their orders directly from Satan in bodily form.”

I consider this statement to be absolutely true.

This should make clear to us who our enemy actually is. We fight “...not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against... the spirits of wickedness in high places...” In other words, Satan and his forces.

Each time the “nefarious forces” had engineered the election of “a pope according to our wants”, that Pope who had been validly elected, came under the influence and protection of the Holy Ghost, and instead, soon came to oppose the doctrines of the secret societies, and became their implacable enemies.

Therefore, another method had to be devised that would thwart the action, the charism, of the Holy Ghost on, at least, the one who would be presented to the whole Church as Her legitimate head, yet who would not, in truth, be such.

The only way this could be accomplished with the necessary secrecy and assurance of success was by doing it from within a valid conclave. Satan had managed to force an anti-pope on the Church, 44 times to be exact, from outside, and all had eventually failed. But he is persistent.

Remember that the devil is far, far more intelligent than the most intelligent of men. Furthermore, remember that “...the devils believe...and tremble...”. I.e, they understand and believe in the existence and effectiveness of those spiritual things which we often either take for granted, or, in some cases, may not even be sure exist. Undoubtedly, some of them, at least, are experts in Canon Law, and Theology.

In 1958, after the death of Pope Pius XII, the time was ripe. That “Synthesis of all Heresies”, Modernism, supported and fostered by the secret societies, had secretly, and not so secretly, grown stronger and stronger. It was supported and fostered not only by the secret societies, but also by those Catholic churchmen within it. They had laid their plans well. In many cases, they had blackmailed susceptible members of the College of Cardinals, and there were not a few. Some others of the members of that College were members of the secret societies and would do their bidding.

Pius XII was the last among several popes who promulgated an order that even those Cardinals who had been excommunicated for certain reasons could not be denied a valid vote in the Conclave. In addition, it is a point of Canon Law that no one can be charged with certain other excommunicatable offenses unless those offenses are both public and notorious, and in some cases unless the perpetrator continues in his offense despite repeated warnings.

Therefore, some of the electors might be occult (hidden) enemies of the Church, yet would still be valid electors with a valid vote in a conclave. We are certain that some, that is, enough of them, were such.

On the other hand, if there were enough of the valid electors other than the enemies, an election could be steered by the enemies towards a favored candidate whether their votes, alone, could gain the election or not.

So, with the foregoing as background, let me present the scenario, as I know it.

First of all, it is suspected that the nefarious forces engineered the deaths of at least two of the Cardinal electors immediately before the 1958 Conclave. One of them, the very conservative Cardinal Mooney from the United States, died suddenly and unexpectedly within hours of the opening of the Conclave. It is possible that he was poisoned, although, of course, we have no hard evidence for that. In addition, at least two others were injured, one in a car accident. If these events were contrived, then this may have been to ensure that the plans that followed weren’t inconvenienced, or that the number of either compromised, or allied, Cardinal electors was at its most advantageous.

As soon as all the possible valid, and specially chosen, electors were ensconced behind the locked doors of the Conclave, voting began according to the rules of Pope Pius XII.

The nefarious forces gently, or not so gently, steered the election towards a candidate who would serve their purposes. We believe that one to have been the youngest Cardinal in the room at age 51, Giuseppe Cardinal Siri, of Genoa, whom Pius XII had wanted to be his successor, but it really doesn’t matter. It could have been any legitimate candidate. There were several others who have been suggested, Cardinal Agajanian for one, but Cardinal Siri seems to be the most likely for many reasons, among which was that he was the youngest, and healthiest Cardinal alive and would most probably live a long time.

Eventually, there were enough votes to elect him. Eventually, he accepted the office, took a name, perhaps Gregory XVII, and began to receive the traditional obeisances of the Cardinals there present.

Once it was completely clear to the nefarious forces that Siri had been validly elected, literally all hell broke loose.

There was a storm of protest raised. There were many threats, such as “If this man is elected, the persecution of Catholics all over the world, but especially behind the Iron Curtain, will be immediately renewed, worse than ever.”, to “your extended family will be targeted”, to “they will atomic-bomb Rome”.

Eventually, the validly elected, and by now True Pope, yielded and agreed to step down.

However, according to Canon Law, and even to common sense, a forced abdication is no abdication at all.

Furthermore, you can be certain that the nefarious forces, who were also expert in Church Law, made absolutely certain that his “abdication” would be invalid, that he would be, and would remain the true pope upon whom the Holy Ghost would rest, for as long as they felt they needed him.

Thus, they WANTED a True Pope to be elected, in order, as I said, that the Holy Ghost would “rest” on him alone, as He has on every other True Pope. This to make certain that the man whose “election” they would then engineer would NOT be under the protection of the Holy Ghost, and would do their bidding. There can only be one pope at a time, not two. Therefore, once the proper person was validly elected, anyone else elected, even by the same College of Cardinals, in the same conclave, and for whatever reasons, would automatically be an antipope.

So, those who were left went back to balloting, and eventually, Angelo Roncalli was chosen. After the remaining matters were concluded, he was shown on the balcony in St. Peter’s square as if he was the true pope, and was acclaimed by the thousands there.

Some have asked why Siri (if it was Siri) did not say or do something to make the truth known. I have no real knowledge of what actually happened, but I can guess at some possibilities. First of all, who would believe him? Certainly, none of those in St. Peter’s square who saw Roncalli presented to them as the true pope, and very few, if any at all, anywhere else in the world would do so. To protest would have, first, violated the secrecy of the conclave, and secondly, made him look like he was insane. How much support from other Cardinals would he have? My guess is about 5, among them Ottaviani.

Secondly, it is possible that Siri himself was so shocked at what happened, and so unsure of what to do, whom to trust, etc., that he could do nothing. After all, he was the youngest Cardinal there that day.

Then there were some amongst the Cardinals who had been blackmailed, as Malachi Martin assured us in more than one of his books. Those Cardinals could not, or would not, do very much, if anything, to help.

Then there is the matter of The Secret of the Conclave to be considered. How many there felt that responsibility so strongly that they would never compromise it? We don't know. In any case, nothing was done. In fact, it appears that nothing of any substance was even attempted.

However, the nefarious forces didn’t stop here. They didn’t accept this great victory as their final work. They continued their work of destruction.

First of all, the scenario above was reenacted in every following conclave, Montini's, Luciani's, and Wojtyla's, until Siri (or whomever it was) died. They had to keep him alive as long as possible, in order that the various methods set in place by God to provide for a true pope in almost every other contingency, such as the “...peaceful acceptance by the whole church...” wouldn’t eventually result in one of their candidates actually becoming the True Pope and falling under the influence of the Holy Ghost. This would wreck all their plans.

They HAD to see to it that, eventually, the papal succession would be ended. They engineered, through their antipopes and their infiltrated hierarchy, the stacking of the College of Cardinals, and every other important office in the Church with their chosen candidates.

Then, through attrition by death and age, the Church would be theirs, and there would, eventually, no longer be a need to allow Siri to continue to live.

He died on May 2, 1989. His last reported words were, “Tibi, Domini”.

By then, the number of Cardinal Electors necessary to elect a true pope was far overwhelmed by those invalid electors who could easily force the election of an antipope, the latest being so-called “Benedict XVI” or Ratzinger. If there are any valid electors left alive, their numbers are so small, and their influence so little, that nothing can be done from that quarter.

Yet we know that Our Lord will never allow His Church to be destroyed. Therefore, He must have provided a way for Her to continue. We who believe this scenario believe that we DO have a valid and organized hierarchy somewhere in the world. It is probably very small, but it is alive. We also believe that we have a true pope, the real successor of St. Peter, somewhere in the world, hidden from his enemies. We believe that the apostolic succession cannot die, and that it cannot require a miracle from God to reestablish it. It never ended, and cannot end before the entire world ends. All we have to do is wait, and survive, until, in God's good time, the Church arises from Her tomb, like Our Lord did on Easter Sunday.

OK. Now its your turn. Try to tear it apart.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:43 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
Ken Gordon wrote:
OK. Now its your turn. Try to tear it apart.


There's no need, Ken, it doesn't provide any evidence for the dozens of assertions or guesses it involves.

However, two things I object to. Pius IX was not a liberal in any religious sense of the word. He was a liberal in his generous government of the papal states, and that is what led the Masons to think he would be friendly towards liberalism in religion. He explained this himself: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/viewt ... ?f=2&t=936

The second objection is to Malachi Martin as a trustworthy witness of anything at all. As somebody once wisely put it, when a man has lied to you in a grave matter, never believe him again. Martin was an agent of disinformation, par excellence. And a revolting worldly degenerate hireling time-server to boot. You can quote that if you like. :)

I also remind you that any story which emerged from any modern conclave necessarily involved the excommunication of the person responsible for the leak. So by definition we only have sinful, criminal, sources of what happened in conclaves. Hardly top-shelf witnesses.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:28 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
Oh, by the way, you know what Spellman was reported to have said back in New York when he returned from the conclave and was asked what the new pope (Roncalli) was like? "He should be selling bananas." :D

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:33 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
John Lane wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
OK. Now its your turn. Try to tear it apart.


There's no need, Ken, it doesn't provide any evidence for the dozens of assertions or guesses it involves.


Sigh....John....what evidence would you wish to have? How would one obtain incontrovertible evidence from inside the Conclave? How would one obtain incontrovertible evidence when those who had most to lose, or to gain, and who hold the power would never want it made public?

John Lane wrote:
However, two things I object to: Pius IX was not a liberal in any religious sense of the word.


Of course he was not! I never said he was. If you will read a little closer, I called him, "...the saintly Pius IX...." What I was trying to make clear (badly, obviously, as usual) was that the Masonic forces thought he was.

John Lane wrote:
He was a liberal in his generous government of the papal states, and that is what led the Masons to think he would be friendly towards liberalism in religion. He explained this himself: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=936


Yes, John, I have read that, and other things, that proved to me, long ago, that Pius IX was a saint...despite the fact that the Conciliar Church has "beatified" him.

John Lane wrote:
The second objection is to Malachi Martin as a trustworthy witness of anything at all.


Then, finally, you and I agree on something, at least. We believe him to have been at least a double-agent, if not a triple-agent. He was, at the very least, a most enigmatic character. His books from the very first were, in my opinion, sinful. When he wrote as Michael Serafian especially. Furthermore, I believe he was finally murdered by his own "side" because he couldn't, or wouldn't, keep his mouth shut.

John Lane wrote:
As somebody once wisely put it, when a man has lied to you in a grave matter, never believe him again. Martin was an agent of disinformation, par excellence. And a revolting worldly degenerate hireling time-server to boot. You can quote that if you like. :)


There is no need. We have said far worse and possibly more accurate things about him than that.

John Lane wrote:
I also remind you that any story which emerged from any modern conclave necessarily involved the excommunication of the person responsible for the leak.


Yes. We are quite aware of that, thank you.

John Lane wrote:
So by definition we only have sinful, criminal, sources of what happened in conclaves. Hardly top-shelf witnesses.


To the first part of this last two sentences, I would answer, "not necessarily". I would also have said "...sinful OR criminal, or both". Furthermore, evidence for more than one conclave was gotten out of it by those who were not personally involved. I am thinking of a conclave in the 18th (I believe) century. If I can find it in my voluminous documentation, I will attempt to post the details here.

To the second part of the above two sentences, I would heartily agree. Nonetheless, SOME, at least of what was said was true, as was proven by later historically-certain events.

Whether a bit of information is true or false is not dependent on whether or not the one providing that information commits a sin giving it. The two are separate. The information stands on its own. Even the devil can tell the truth either when it suits him, or when he is forced to it by God.

Remember, John, I am talking about history here, not doctrine.

In any case, leaving out of the equation all the prejudices you have held for a long time, think about the METHOD I outlined.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sat Oct 29, 2011 5:15 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
John Lane wrote:
Oh, by the way, you know what Spellman was reported to have said back in New York when he returned from the conclave and was asked what the new pope (Roncalli) was like? "He should be selling bananas." :D


Yes. And I also know that Spellman hired a boat, and had himself rowed up and down the Tiber (?) River in an attempt to show himself as "Pastor and Sailor".

In my opinion, Spellman was another "just jim dandy" prelate. A complete jerk.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sat Oct 29, 2011 5:18 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:02 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Spokane
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
John Lane wrote:

The second objection is to Malachi Martin as a trustworthy witness of anything at all. As somebody once wisely put it, when a man has lied to you in a grave matter, never believe him again. Martin was an agent of disinformation, par excellence. And a revolting worldly degenerate hireling time-server to boot. You can quote that if you like. :)



I have an old newsletter of Fr. Lawrence Brey from either 1988 or 1989. He was already warning people about Malachi Martin back then, and that was a few years before Malachi found his "nitch" in traditional circles.


Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:11 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:35 pm
Posts: 11
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
Question for Ken Gordon:

You said
"We also believe that we have a true pope, the real successor of St. Peter, somewhere in the world, hidden from his enemies. We believe that the apostolic succession cannot die, and that it cannot require a miracle from God to reestablish it. It never ended, and cannot end before the entire world ends."

What does this mean? Does this mean that Cardinal Siri "Pope Gregory XVII" appointed his own successor before his death in 1989? Is that even possible?

One of the reasons why I am leaning towards Mr. Gordon's thesis, the Cardinal Siri thesis, is because of more reflection on the Great Western Schism. The reason I became a sede was because of listening to MHFM on The Great Western Schism. Then I did more research and thought to myself "there is a precedent for this...there have been men who have claimed to be popes who were really antipopes." But when you really think about it, technically the Great Western Schism cannot be defined as "sedevacantism" because there really was a pope alive during the crisis, its not like the seat was vacant- hence "sedevacante".

Did you come to the same conclusion Ken?

Finally, what is your opinion on the controversial death of antipope JP1? Was he murdered by these same masonic forces?


Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:42 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
needhelp10 wrote:
Question for Ken Gordon:

You said
"We also believe that we have a true pope, the real successor of St. Peter, somewhere in the world, hidden from his enemies. We believe that the apostolic succession cannot die, and that it cannot require a miracle from God to reestablish it. It never ended, and cannot end before the entire world ends."

What does this mean?


Only what it says (I hope am clear here) that the Apostolic Succession cannot die. It must continue to the end of time.

needhelp10 wrote:
Does this mean that Cardinal Siri "Pope Gregory XVII" appointed his own successor before his death in 1989?


No. I hope that I make it clear that I am only referring there to the Apostolic Succession, and nothing else.

needhelp10 wrote:
Is that even possible?


If you mean, for a Pope to appoint his own successor, I believe it is possible. It has been done in the past. Pope Felix IV appointed his successor, Boniface, although Boniface was then confirmed by one means or another, possibly an election, after Felix died.

I believe we have discussed this very issue of whether or not a pope can appoint his own successor here, and the conclusion was that he could do anything necessary to assure the Apostolic Succession.

needhelp10 wrote:
One of the reasons why I am leaning towards Mr. Gordon's thesis, the Cardinal Siri thesis,


Please don't call it that anymore. To make myself clear on this, although we believe, for many reasons, that Cardinal Siri was the one involved, it really does not matter WHO it really was.

We prefer to call our thesis the sede-impeditist thesis.

needhelp10 wrote:
is because of more reflection on the Great Western Schism. The reason I became a sede was because of listening to MHFM on The Great Western Schism. Then I did more research and thought to myself "there is a precedent for this...there have been men who have claimed to be popes who were really antipopes." But when you really think about it, technically the Great Western Schism cannot be defined as "sedevacantism" because there really was a pope alive during the crisis, its not like the seat was vacant- hence "sedevacante".

Did you come to the same conclusion Ken?


No. Not really. If you study the history of the Church, you will find that there have been many antipopes during Her history. It works out to 2 antipopes per century, on average. Although I cannot now remember whether or not the present total, 44, includes those in the immediate past (Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, Ratzinger), it still works out to about 2 per century.

needhelp10 wrote:
Finally, what is your opinion on the controversial death of antipope JP1? Was he murdered by these same masonic forces?


That is an excellent question. Peter Hebblethwaite, a sometime-Jesuit who left his order and became a Vatican correspondent, in one of his books (perhaps "The Year of Three Popes") covers Luciani's 33 day pontificate in some detail, and does say that Luciani was probably poisoned.

From my perspective, the fact that his pontificate was only 33 days long has particular significance: the number 33 is one of Masonry's particularly important numbers. They build many of their rituals around it. The highest degree in "standard" Masonry is the 33rd degree. Also, Masons who are architects and builders use the number 33 often in one way or another.

So the fact that his "pontificate" lasted 33 days is, to me, very suggestive.

My personal opinion is that, yes, he was murdered. By whom, I am not sure.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:08 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
Dear Ken,

I did some cleaning up today and moved off-topic posts to this thread where they are on-topic.

Ken Gordon wrote:
Sigh....John....what evidence would you wish to have? How would one obtain incontrovertible evidence from inside the Conclave? How would one obtain incontrovertible evidence when those who had most to lose, or to gain, and who hold the power would never want it made public?


I just don't get it. If there isn't any convincing evidence, then why would anybody believe it? If there is convincing evidence, then why is it not published? All I've seen any time I've looked at this is a theory built on some presumptions about theology which I don't agree with, and a whole bunch of rumour, with a sprinkling of facts, some of which are disputed. It's very hard to give it any credence.

You realise that if you agree with me that evidence supposedly gleaned from people inside a modern conclave (not one from the eighteenth century, a modern one, in which the secrecy provisions have been watertight - you can't breach them with sinning and incurring excommunication, period), must for obvious reasons remain suspect, then obviously there cannot be a convincing case at all which relies upon that evidence. It simply isn't possible at this stage. Now that doesn't mean there can't be a convincing case built on other evidence, but as a matter of fact there hasn't been one presented.

My view of this, I repeat for the umpteenth time, is that in the absence of evidence I withhold belief. I am not your opponent on this, I'm just not interested in it. One has to choose where to direct one's time and energy.

John Lane wrote:
Of course he was not! I never said he was. If you will read a little closer, I called him, "...the saintly Pius IX...." What I was trying to make clear (badly, obviously, as usual) was that the Masonic forces thought he was.

Sure, but your presentation seemed to be arguing that the Masons wanted their own man in the office and learned from experience that when they got one there he always turned good by the influence of the Holy Ghost. If Pius IX was not an example of this phenomenon, then his name doesn't appear to be useful in making the case. And I don't see any other example in history which would fit the case.

Quote:
Then, finally, you and I agree on something, at least. We believe him to have been at least a double-agent, if not a triple-agent. He was, at the very least, a most enigmatic character. His books from the very first were, in my opinion, sinful. When he wrote as Michael Serafian especially. Furthermore, I believe he was finally murdered by his own "side" because he couldn't, or wouldn't, keep his mouth shut.

Well we agree on what he was. What we don't agree on is how to treat his books. I'd bin them and try and forget everything he wrote. You appear to retain some things on the theory that he slipped up and told the truth, or boasted and did the same, or whatever. But I don't see any rational principle which would provide the criterion for sifting the truth from the error. How do you do it?

Ken Gordon wrote:
In any case, leaving out of the equation all the prejudices you have held for a long time, think about the METHOD I outlined.

It's fanciful, I think. And it's a guess, not a conclusion based upon evidence. There is no hint of it in the documents of the Alta Vendita, nor from any other source. It's a guess. And it's based upon the idea that if a man was elected pope validly he'd be forced by grace to act in the Church's interests, whatever his moral depravity or personal ideas (i.e. heresies). I don't find that notion in itself, put in that limited way, perverse, but I'd like to see it presented properly with quotes from theologians supporting it. But the real problem isn't that it's an unproven if attractive idea, the problem is that if there was a defect in the election of Roncalli or Montini and one or both weren't popes, then that grace wouldn't be operative and the whole question would be moot.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:55 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
John Lane wrote:
Dear Ken,

I did some cleaning up today and moved off-topic posts to this thread where they are on-topic.

Ken Gordon wrote:
Sigh....John....what evidence would you wish to have? How would one obtain incontrovertible evidence from inside the Conclave? How would one obtain incontrovertible evidence when those who had most to lose, or to gain, and who hold the power would never want it made public?


I just don't get it. If there isn't any convincing evidence,


So, what evidence would, if not necessarily convince you, at least help you to be open to the possibility? A written, witnessed, notarized confession from Roncalli? Or one, signed, witnessed and notarized, from a high prelate in the Church admitting, with ample detail, that he was a Mason, and was actively working to destroy the Church, including clear descriptions of the methods he and his colleagues used? Anything less? You keep harping on "convincing evidence" yet have never explained to me what sort of evidence you would find convincing. Personally, I doubt that such evidence could ever be produced simply because you would never accept anything opposed to your present thinking on this matter.

John Lane wrote:
You realise that if you agree with me that evidence supposedly gleaned from people inside a modern conclave (not one from the eighteenth century, a modern one, in which the secrecy provisions have been watertight - you can't breach them with


I think you meant "without".

John Lane wrote:
sinning and incurring excommunication, period), must for obvious reasons remain suspect,


I do not agree with the implications of this statement: although I agree that anyone providing certain kinds of information from inside a conclave would incur the penalties you mention above, I do not agree that such a fact makes the evidence produced wrong. "Suspect" yes, but all that means is that if we are to confirm the truth or falseness of that information, we must look for corroboration or contradiction some where else.

John Lane wrote:
then obviously there cannot be a convincing case at all which relies upon that evidence.


Say that to the lawyers who prepare cases for presentation in courts of law, both civil and religious. They would tell you that many cases involve evidence from "suspicious" sources, that is then proven or discarded after further investigation.

John Lane wrote:
It simply isn't possible at this stage. Now that doesn't mean there can't be a convincing case built on other evidence, but as a matter of fact there hasn't been one presented.


At least not according to your particular criteria...which you have not detailed.

John Lane wrote:
My view of this, I repeat for the umpteenth time, is that in the absence of evidence


...the kind of acceptable ( to you) evidence which you have not yet described in detail...

John Lane wrote:
I withhold belief.


Which is certainly your privilege.

John Lane wrote:
I am not your opponent on this, I'm just not interested in it. One has to choose where to direct one's time and energy.


Of course.

John Lane wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
Of course he was not! I never said he was. If you will read a little closer, I called him, "...the saintly Pius IX...." What I was trying to make clear (badly, obviously, as usual) was that the Masonic forces thought he was.

Sure, but your presentation seemed to be arguing that the Masons wanted their own man in the office and learned from experience that when they got one there he always turned good by the influence of the Holy Ghost.


First of all, I would not say "turned good": I would say that the Holy Ghost made it clear to all that he was good to begin with, and prevented him from falling into error subsequently.

John Lane wrote:
If Pius IX was not an example of this phenomenon, then his name doesn't appear to be useful in making the case.


The point is that the Masons THOUGHT he was their man. God proved he never was.

John Lane wrote:
And I don't see any other example in history which would fit the case.


I can. That one of the previous "Gregories" who suppressed the Jesuits. I believe him to be the first of those. It was probably an early experiment on their part.

John Lane wrote:
Quote:
Then, finally, you and I agree on something, at least. We believe him to have been at least a double-agent, if not a triple-agent. He was, at the very least, a most enigmatic character. His books from the very first were, in my opinion, sinful. When he wrote as Michael Serafian especially. Furthermore, I believe he was finally murdered by his own "side" because he couldn't, or wouldn't, keep his mouth shut.

Well we agree on what he was. What we don't agree on is how to treat his books. I'd bin them and try and forget everything he wrote. But I don't see any rational principle which would provide the criterion for sifting the truth from the error. How do you do it?


On the principle of "consistency". I.e. if what he (or any other suspicious source for that matter) says that seems out of character, or that has a certain "ring of truth", or that is puzzling in the "Now why did he say that?" sense, then by examining other sources under less or no suspicion, comparing them, and reading history, one can arrive at a conclusion that satisfies.

John Lane wrote:
It's a guess. And it's based upon the idea that if a man was elected pope validly he'd be forced by grace to act in the Church's interests, whatever his moral depravity or personal ideas (i.e. heresies).


Correct. Do you find this opposed to what you know of either Catholic doctrine, or to the history of the Church? I don't....but then again, I am not as learned as you.

John Lane wrote:
I don't find that notion in itself, put in that limited way, perverse, but I'd like to see it presented properly with quotes from theologians supporting it.


I leave that to you, John. I have not read all the theologians you have, I have not the library you have, and as I have told you more than once, I believe now, and have always believed, everything you have ever said here and anywhere else when you quote from those sources. Both of us have limited time and resources: why should we double our efforts to find the truth? That seems to be a waste of our efforts to me.

John Lane wrote:
But the real problem isn't that it's an unproven if attractive idea, the problem is that if there was a defect in the election of Roncalli or Montini and one or both weren't popes, then that grace wouldn't be operative and the whole question would be moot.


Gee, John, again we agree on something else. Your statement almost perfectly states our position. :lol:

Or at least part of it...

It was not only a simple "defect" in the election: if that was all it was, then your "...peaceful acceptance by the whole church...." would have healed it in relatively short order.

Can you not see that if the Masonic forces did force a "defect" in the election, that in order for that to make the grace of the Holy Ghost inoperative for the next 53-years-and-counting, there absolutely had to be a couple of additional things to take place to continue its effects? If it was ONLY that "defect" in the election you mention above that took place, how could we then have an entire series of anti-popes, one right after the other? Surely, the methods that God had put in place would have prevented that. But they have not. Therefore, there had to be something in addition to that simple "defect" in the election. There had to be something that maintained the effects of that defective election, and continued them.

(Edited today, the Feast of Christ the King, to clarify a point.)

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:17 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re:
John Lane wrote:
The following quotes and items of information are all taken from "History of Vatican II, Vol. II" by Giuseppe Alberigo
& Joseph A. Komonchak, Orbis Books/Peeters, 1997.
Fro Komonchak has done some very good work in the history of Vatican II.

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:11 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Siri's "election"/acceptance of popes/Paul VI
He has, and I have all of the volumes of his "History of Vatican II". Cost a fortune, but worth having as references.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:25 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Siri's "election"/acceptance of popes/Paul VI
I know an ICRSS priest who (jokingly? affectionately? I couldn't tell…) refers to him as Pope Siri. :)
(ICRSS was founded by Siri disciples.)

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:30 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Siri's "election"/acceptance of popes/Paul VI
Also, the Siri Thesis doesn't make much sense considering he accepted Paul VI. And if Paul VI was anti-pope, wouldn't Pope Siri cease being pope by recognizing an anti-pope?

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:33 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:44 am
Posts: 76
New post Re: Siri's "election"/acceptance of popes/Paul VI
Alan Aversa wrote:
Also, the Siri Thesis doesn't make much sense considering he accepted Paul VI. And if Paul VI was anti-pope, wouldn't Pope Siri cease being pope by recognizing an anti-pope?

We don't know what pressure Siri was under if he was actually the de jure Pope. It must have been terrible. He couldn't stand Montini, that's a known fact. And he may have been convinced, at least for a while, that he really had freely declined being elected, and had no reason, at the time, to doubt that Roncalli and Montini were Catholics. But as in hindsight it has become crystal-clear that the Vatican II antipopes aren't Catholics, it shows that Siri made some terrible blunders with regard to the "official" V2 "popes", but that he was suckered by the Masonic forces at the helm. I keep thinking of St. Peter denying Our Lord while He was undergoing His Passion. We can hope that, if Siri did get elected and retain the Papacy, that he has kept a Roman succession going somewhere underground.


Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:14 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Siri's "election"/acceptance of popes/Paul VI
Brendan wrote:
We can hope that, if Siri did get elected and retain the Papacy, that he has kept a Roman succession going somewhere underground.
If he were alive today, he'd be 107 yrs…

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:41 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Siri's "election"/acceptance of popes/Paul VI
Brendan wrote:
I keep thinking of St. Peter denying Our Lord while He was undergoing His Passion.


Good analogy. St. Peter wasn't pope then either. St. Peter was appointed pope by Our Lord after His resurrection. So that's two men who weren't pope acting in ways that are incompatible with the papacy.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:32 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 396 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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.