The "Siri Thesis" Unravels

  • Thread starter Thread starter bones_IV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well that was a nice read, thanks for posting that, good Mr. Bones!

Perhaps the tone of the last section of the article is overly optimistic about said “traditionalists” having their issues reconciled, but a little optimism here and there isn’t harmful, I don’t think.

When I first read about the “Siri Theory” (I think my source was traditioninaction.com or dailycatholic.com, but I may be wrong) I was like “hey, that’s it!!” But not for long. That was at least a year ago. There was so little to support it, and it seemed there was so little information, once you read a few things for it, the theory just lost it’s gusto, and became implausible. You’re still left with wondering “well, what now?” since he died in 1989.

Also, apparently he was a likely candidate for the Papacy in the 1978 elections. Why would he be a candidate, if he was already Pope??

This wikipedia article is nice. Apparently, he was pro-Vatican 2, died in good standing with the Church and denied being the Pope, or having been elected.
 
Well, one thing that hasn’t unravelled yet is the mystery of why the chimney blew white smoke for a full five minutes, why the conclavists were seen at the windows waving to the people (which could not have happened unless the voting had ended), why Vatican Radio announced “We have a Pope !!” over and over again, why the Palatine Guard was assembled and the people told to assemble in St. Peters Square, only to find out that no pope had in fact been elected… Siri No-Siree? Maybe, but weird things happened at the conclave that eventually elected Pope John the 23rd.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)
 
40.png
Jaypeeto3:
Well, one thing that hasn’t unravelled yet is the mystery of why the chimney blew white smoke for a full five minutes, why the conclavists were seen at the windows waving to the people (which could not have happened unless the voting had ended), why Vatican Radio announced “We have a Pope !!” over and over again, why the Palatine Guard was assembled and the people told to assemble in St. Peters Square, only to find out that no pope had in fact been elected… Siri No-Siree? Maybe, but weird things happened at the conclave that eventually elected Pope John the 23rd.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)
Click to expand...
could you indicate your source? The article is interesting, and (old) Gibson’s statements did not mention those presumably pro sede vacantist arguments.
 
WHOA there, pardner !!
The fact that weird things happened is no proof for
Sedevacantism !!
I’ll dig up the sources and post again later.

God bless,
Jaypeeto3
 
thepopeinred.com/articles.htm

And the ABOVE website is REALLY conspiratorial in nature.
They bluntly declare that Siri was Pope Gregory, no if’s ands or buts. A quaint little read. I’m not posting it to advocate their theory, just to show that it really does fly with some folks.

Jaypeeto3
 
Jaypeeto3 said:
thepopeinred.com/articles.htmAnd the ABOVE website is REALLY conspiratorial in nature.
They bluntly declare that Siri was Pope Gregory, no if’s ands or buts. A quaint little read. I’m not posting it to advocate their theory, just to show that it really does fly with some folks.
Jaypeeto3
Click to expand...

thank you so much for that quick answer! i’m going to carefully read the articles.
 
40.png
Jaypeeto3:
Well, one thing that hasn’t unravelled yet is the mystery of why the chimney blew white smoke for a full five minutes, why the conclavists were seen at the windows waving to the people (which could not have happened unless the voting had ended), why Vatican Radio announced “We have a Pope !!” over and over again, why the Palatine Guard was assembled and the people told to assemble in St. Peters Square, only to find out that no pope had in fact been elected… Siri No-Siree? Maybe, but weird things happened at the conclave that eventually elected Pope John the 23rd.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)
Click to expand...
Here’s something I found interesting. The september 2004 issue of inside the Vatican quoted Fr. Charles-Roux as follows:

"There were certain irregularities about the election during that 1958 conclave, as Cardinal Tisserant has himself acknowledged. Some say Agagianian was elected, others Siri, others some other cardinal, and that the camerlengo then annulled the election. In any case, I’m quite sure John XXIII chose his name, the name of an antipope [of the 15th century], quite consciously, to show he had been irregularly elected" (Inside the Vatican; September, 2004).

As most people probably know, there was an anti-Pope named John XXIII.
 
40.png
USMC:
Here’s something I found interesting. The september 2004 issue of inside the Vatican quoted Fr. Charles-Roux as follows:

"There were certain irregularities about the election during that 1958 conclave, as Cardinal Tisserant has himself acknowledged. Some say Agagianian was elected, others Siri, others some other cardinal, and that the camerlengo then annulled the election. In any case, I’m quite sure John XXIII chose his name, the name of an antipope [of the 15th century], quite consciously, to show he had been irregularly elected" (Inside the Vatican; September, 2004).

As most people probably know, there was an anti-Pope named John XXIII.
Click to expand...
Yeah, in the late 14th - early 15th centuries when there were 3 alleged Popes and the Council of Constance was called. Those were truly “Tumultuous Times!”

It would be interesting to know just what Fr. Charles-Roux meant by “irregularly elected.”

However, Card. Angelo Roncalli’s choice of “John XXIII” for his title is ironic, whatever his reason for choosing it. Optimistic and bold at the same time. Nonetheless, if there is ever a John XXIV, folks can look back with gratitude that the title of John XXIII was redeemed and the “23’rd” stigma is in the past.

Or, if you didn’t like Angelo Roncalli, I guess you would say the title wasn’t redeemed…?
 
Jaypeeto3 said:
thepopeinred.com/articles.htm

And the ABOVE website is REALLY conspiratorial in nature.
They bluntly declare that Siri was Pope Gregory, no if’s ands or buts. A quaint little read. I’m not posting it to advocate their theory, just to show that it really does fly with some folks.

Jaypeeto3
Click to expand...

True, there are many aspects of the “Siri Theory” that have yet to be adequately answered/refuted.

But for those, like me, who don’t require every aspect to be dealt with, for us, it’s enough that there are inconsistincies and foggy spots to cast reasonable doubt on the theory, and in good conscience dismiss it.

Some people say Siri denied being elected, others say he got all shaky (when asked about it) and said “I can’t talk about it, bad things happened, I’m bound by oath.”

Here’s a question though, let’s grant that he was in fact elected. Since 3 Popes I know of have resigned from the Papacy (Pontian, St. Peter Celestine V, and Gregory XII), it’s not out of the question that he could have not accepted, is it?

Although, I do realize that it may not be a valid resignation if it comes about due to external coercion, which is the argument the “Pro-Siri Theorists” advocate…, that the Soviets or somebody would persecute the Catholics if Siri took the Papacy. Hence, external coercion. A “shotgun wedding” except in this case a “shotgun non-acceptance/resignation” of the Papacy.
 
This was a very interesting find, since I never heard about the Siri Theory. However, after more research, I’ve discovered that there were even worse situations in the past, even in the 1800’s.
Reformed Rob:
Here’s a question though, let’s grant that he was in fact elected. Since 3 Popes I know of have resigned from the Papacy (Pontian, St. Peter Celestine V, and Gregory XII), it’s not out of the question that he could have not accepted, is it?
Click to expand...
I found that in the past, certain temporal powers had the ability to veto the results of an election. I am now under the impression that whatever happens in the conclave, even after a supposedly final vote, is not final until they come out - regardless of smoke signals and messengers.

Furthermore, the fact that the “conservatives” and “liberals” both won the papacy election at times and still produced good popes is an indication that all is not lost regardless of what type of leaning the person is who gets elected. Some changed either upon election or during their tenure.
Reformed Rob:
Although, I do realize that it may not be a valid resignation if it comes about due to external coercion, which is the argument the “Pro-Siri Theorists” advocate…, that the Soviets or somebody would persecute the Catholics if Siri took the Papacy. Hence, external coercion. A “shotgun wedding” except in this case a “shotgun non-acceptance/resignation” of the Papacy.
Click to expand...
As I said, this would not invalidate the election, because this type of opposition is documented as having happened in the past - and you may be surprised how often! Thus, even if Siri had been truly elected, and some French cardinals objected under whatever pretext about persecutions, and “coercion” was placed upon the validly elected new Pope, it would not be “invalid” if that Pope went along with them and relinquished his election.

If the Pope opposed, then he would have to maintain that position, even publicly. But since Siri did not do this, then we have no solid basis to claim he was the true Pope.

hurst
 
Jaypeeto3 said:
thepopeinred.com/articles.htm

And the ABOVE website is REALLY conspiratorial in nature.
Click to expand...

They at one point show a picture of Pope Paul VI carrying the tiara. They say he is “giving away (Smashing) the triple-crowned Papal Tiara to the Godless United Nations, who in turn sold it to a Jewish merchant.”
thepopeinred.com/successor.htm

However, that same picture is attributed by wikipedia as being the moment the Pope is “laying his Papal Tiara on the altar of St. Peter’s Basilica at the end of Vatican II”. They say it was then “presented to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. by the Apostolic Delegate to the United States on February 6, 1968 as a gesture of Pope Paul VI’s affection for the Catholic Church in the United States. It is on permanent display in Memorial Hall along with the stole of Pope John XXIII, which he wore at the opening of the Second Vatican Council.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_tiara

And as a matter of fact, I have personally been to the Basilica in D.C. and saw the display of that tiara in the lower level.

So right there is one piece of disinformation!

It is a proverb that when someone hates another, they will readily believe evil about them. Schism is precisely that - a break in the bond of charity among believers. We must tread cautiously here lest we get caught up in distrust also. Let us pray for each other for patience in the trials of life.

hurst
 
USMC wrote:
As most people probably know, there was an anti-Pope named John XXIII.
Click to expand...
Would most people also know the following names of all the anti-popes and current “claimants”?
The anti-popes were:
  1. St. Hippolytus in the reign of St Calixtus I (217-222)
  2. Novation, 251
  3. Felix II, 355
  4. Ursicinus, 366
  5. Eulalius, 418
  6. Laurence, 498
  7. Dioscorus, 530
  8. Virgilius 537 (Initially, he usurped the throne by illegitimate means - but received universal recognition AFTER the death of Silverius)
  9. St. Eugenius 654-657 (Elected during the lifetime of St Martin)
  10. Peter 686 Omitted from both Annuario Pontificio, 1997, Liberia Editrice Vatican and Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, 1913.)
  11. Theodore, 687
  12. Paschal, 687
  13. Constantine, 767
  14. Philip, 768
  15. Anastasius, 885
  16. Christopher, 903/4
  17. Leo VIII, 956-63 (There has always been a doubt whether John XII or Leo VIII was the lawful Pope of the time. Often deemed an anti-pope, Leo VIII is treated as lawful by the Annuario Pontificio.)
  18. Boniface VII, 974
  19. John XVI, 997
  20. Gregory VI, in the reign of Sergius IV (1009-1012)
  21. Sylvester III 1044 (His election is of doubtful validity, and his reign ended with the return of Benedict IX. He is recorded as anti-pope by Catholic Encyclopedia but not mentioned in Annuario Pontificio)
  22. Benedict X, 1058
  23. Honorius II, 1061
  24. Clement III, 1084
  25. Theodoric, 1100
  26. Albert, 1102
  27. Sylvester IV, 1105
  28. Gregory VIII, 1118
  29. Celestine II, 1124
  30. Anacletus II, 1130
  31. Victor IV, 1138
  32. Victor IV, 1159-1164
  33. Paschal III, 1164
  34. Calixtus III, 1168
  35. Innocent III, 1179-1180
  36. Nicholas V, 1328
  37. Clement VII, 1378-1394
  38. Benedict XIII, 1394-1417
  39. Clement VIII, 1417
  40. Alexander V, 1409-1410
  41. John XXIII 1410-1415
  42. Clement VIII 1423-29 Gil Sanchez Muñoz - Not mentioned in the Catholic Truth Society pamphlet.)
  43. Benedict XIV 1425-30 Bernardo Garnier - Not mentioned in the Catholic Truth Society pamphlet.)
  44. Felix V, 1440-1449
    Here is a copy of a message sent to a correspondent in 2003; they may have been more claimants surface in the meantime!!!
Since 1950 there have been some seventeen alleged Papal Claimants in addition to those who have been validly and licitly elected to the See of Peter - Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II. Furthermore, there appears to be three waiting in the wings…
Click to expand...
The following anti-popes were recorded at homestead.com/claimants/names.html [now dead link - former sedevacantist and author of the St Francis Newsletter, Robert Hess, notified me that he now rejects sedevacantism and is reconciled with the Catholic Church. Glory be to God! ]
  1. Michael Collin, Clement XV, 1950.
  2. Gaston Tremblay, Gregory XVII, 1968.
  3. Unknown, Lorenes, 1974 ( * ).
  4. Chester Olszewski, Chriszekial Elias in 1977, then Peter II in 1980.
  5. Clemente Dominguez Gomez, Gregory XVII, 1978.
  6. Unknown, Peter Athanasius II, 1984.
  7. Pierre Henri Bubois, Peter II, date unknown.
  8. Francis Konrad Schuckardt, Hadrian VII, 1984.
  9. David Bawden, Michael I, 1990.
  10. Fr. Valeriano Vestini, O.F.M. Cap., Valeriano I, 1990.
  11. Timothy Blasio Ahitler, 1991. Deceased.
  12. Fr. Victor Von Pentz, Linus II, 1994.
  13. Maurice Achieri, Peter II, 1995.
  14. Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher, O.F.M., Cap. Pius XIII, 1998.
  15. Bishop (Thsung) Zhong Huai-de (Joseph). Pius XIV. 1998. Died in 2002.
  16. Julius Tischler, Peter II, date unknown.
  17. Reinaldus Michael Benjamins, (Brother Raymond of the Trinity.) Gregory XIX, 2001.
 
Upcoming claimants (source: homestead.com/claimants/names.html ) were:
  1. Visionary William Kamm, also known as “The Little Pebble,” intends to “become pope” the minute John Paul II dies.
  2. St. Jovite, Quebec, Canada: A “female pope” is alleged to already reside at St. Jovite. She will take over when Gregory XVII dies…
  3. Orrin, North Dakota, U.S.A.: Gary McLaughlin, also known as “Fr. X,” is alleged to be “the future pontiff.”
Click to expand...
I know the details of the alleged #6. Unknown, Peter Athanasius II, 1984." - for I know him and have spoken with him personally by phone on about 6-8 occasions.

As for #14. Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher, O.F.M., Cap. Pius XIII, 1998." - He is a Franciscan priest who was stationed for a long time in Japan and then also in Australia.

Here is a true (but sad) story:-

About 25 years ago my wife and I commenced attended the Tridentine Latin Mass in the home of Yves du Pont, a Frenchman, living in Hawthorn, Melbourne, Australia. Yves was the Editor of the periodical “World Trends”.

Another man and his wife and four children also attended. They lived in Geelong, about 45 miles from Melbourne. There he worked in the Victorian Railways Ticket Office. His and my family became quite friendly, sharing a common interest in the Latin Mass. However, he became obsessed by the writings of the sedevacantists, Patrick Henry Omlor, Hutton Gibson (Mel’s father) and “Veritas” from Louisville, KY., and we gradually drifted in opposite directions.

Four to five years ago I came across the website “True Catholic” (naturally!!!), which announced the good news that Pope Pius XIII had been elected in conclave as Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. This took my attention - and I investigated further. Said “Pope Pius XIII” was, in fact, a disaffected Franciscan, Fr. Lucien Pulvermacher, O.F.M., brother of Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, O.F.M. who has been an adherent to the schismatic and excommunicated Society of St Pius X (SSPX). Fr. Lucien had been a missionary, mostly in Japan, and later in Australia, where he and my Geelong friend met.

After some time, Fr. Lucien and a few of his adherents, after becoming convinced that the Vatican II popes (including Pope John Paul II) were heretics and, therefore, not Catholics and NOT Popes at all, decided that the Church needed to be saved - that they were just the ones to do the saving!!! Without any authority, Fr. Lucien Pulvermacher created my friend and a couple of others (who I think have expired their time on earth) Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church, and these “Cardinals” proceeded to hold a “conclave” to elect a “true” Pope in about Oct. 1998. Naturally, the only one to offer himself for the position was Fr. Lucien - who was duly elected. And the bells rang out throughout the world: “Habemus papem” - “We have a pope”. Perhaps they didn’t ring in your part of the world? Never mind, his website declared the GOOD NEWS.

Naturally enough, there was great rejoicing and back-slapping in the camp of Pope Pius XIII. After a suitably short time, on June 13, 1999, Pope Pius XIII ordained to the priesthood my friend and any other Cardinals in the vicinity. In even shorter time, he consecrated them Bishops - in both cases, using the proper (old-rite) Ordination ceremony and Roman Pontifical. As a grateful quid pro quo, on July 4, 1999, the Cardinals then elevated Pope Pius XIII (still Fr. Lucien Pulvermacher) to the position of Bishop.

And so it is that my long lost friend became Gordon Cardinal Bateman, papal Secretary to Pope Pius XIII, now gloriously reigning in cloud-cookoo land!!!

Footnote: If I had only stuck with Gordon, I might now be John Cardinal Loughnan - and potential claimant to the throne of Pope Pius XIII (upon his demise, of course!)

As with all schismatics, “Pius XIII” and “Cardinal” Bateman fell apart at the seams - Bateman declaring that “Pius XIII” was not in fact a “true” Pope; Pulvermacher responded by sacking Bateman. Gordy is presently tilting at windmills in trying to organize a Conclave from all the so-called “trads” in order to elect a Pope of their choosing!!!
Click to expand...
 
40.png
hurst:
If the Pope opposed, then he would have to maintain that position, even publicly. But since Siri did not do this, then we have no solid basis to claim he was the true Pope.
hurst
Click to expand...
absolutely. i read the articles on Siri and they are confusing and unreliable.
as you pointed out: to be considered Anti Pope you need a True Pope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top