! U.S. Intel Docs Show Cardinal Siri Elected Pope Gregory XVII in 1958 !

  • Thread starter Thread starter DominvsVobiscvm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
well, i guess Jesus was wrong. the gates of hell have prevailed against the church. long live the sedevacantists! (i hope everyone knows i’m just kidding)
 
Having a vacant see would not necessarily imply that the gates of Hell have prevailed. I mean, the see is vacant for some length every time a Pope dies!

And there have been vacancies for a couple of years. Forty-two is an awfully long time, though.

I simply don’t know what to think about this.
 
And can we trust U.S. intel here?

I’d rather be wrong with our Pope.
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
Having a vacant see would not necessarily imply that the gates of Hell have prevailed. I mean, the see is vacant for some length every time a Pope dies!

And there have been vacancies for a couple of years. Forty-two is an awfully long time, though.

I simply don’t know what to think about this.
Click to expand...
Why worry? Gregory isnt the only one. There are a several modern day anti-popes currently “enthroned”. As a matter of fact there are TWO who call themselves Gregory XVII.
 
This looks like another case of rad-trads jumping into bed uncritically with anti-Catholics.

This says it all for me:
Although the book deals with alleged Vatican corruption in terms of money and power and has a decidedly liberal flavor, Williams also–almost as a side-note–includes some straightforward, objective information on the papal conclave of 1958.
Click to expand...
The above basically says, “Even though we disagree with the author on most issues, some of what he says supports our agenda so it must therefore be considered credible.” :ehh:

What implications does this have? Zero, nada, jack-squat, etc.
 
Why worry? Gregory isnt the only one. There are a several modern day anti-popes currently “enthroned”. As a matter of fact there are TWO who call themselves Gregory XII.
Click to expand...
Cardinal Siri never has been an anti-Pope. According to the link above, he was elected Pope Gregory by a lawful oncalve, only to have it unlawfully “annulled” by French bishops.

Cardinal Siri died in 1989. He was not a sedevacandist.
 
I could think of some good old fashioned anglo-saxon words to describe my reaction to this thread, but I don’t think the mods would appreciate them!
 
I thought this topic was banned. These sedevacantists have nothing on Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, IMO.
 
Assuming this is true AND

Assuming the french cardinals protested in some ways, I don’t think that they have that kind of power that they can just annul something. There are too many people in that chapel.

It could’ve went down this way NOTE: 51 cardinals were present (2 from soviet union–not allowed to leave):

-nobody gets picked (1st and 2nd vote)
-two thirds voted for Siri (3rd vote)
-Some cardinals (who happened to be french but had their finger on the politcal pulse in russia) made the point that if Siri is Pope, then some bishops in Russia would get killed. The cardinals talk about this all day.
-Everyone (including Siri) realized that this is probably true.
-Siri realizes that this would be devasting to the church in russia, says, “I’ll resign so that we can pick another pope”
-two thirds votes for Siri again (4th vote)
-They start talking about voting for a temporary cardinal after they just finished voting for Siri. This confirms that they believed that having Siri for pope will get some key people killed.
-they talk about it another day.
-two thirds votes for Roncalli. (5th vote)

Again, assuming it’ true, leaving out stuff can make a story look bad.

Also, I checked out this book called ‘Lives of the Popes’ by Richard McBrien. :eek: Yes, Yes, I know he’s liberal but there’s a lot information on what happened and there’s lots of quotes from Roncalli’s interviews and book. According to mcBrien, the vote wasn’t as uninaminous as the website article implies. Apparently, Roncalli didn’t want to be pope. The book says that there was 11 ballots. Although Rocalli was favored at first, he didn’t get the two thirds. Then this armenian guy started getting popular for a while but after the second day the vote began to favor Roncalli. But he still didn’t have enough votes. They had to vote over and over again to get the neccessary two thirds.

My two cents,
Martin
 
Sure, and wasn’t this the same conclave where the fake moon landing was planned?

JimG
 
Reading the link that explains what they are about is like reading a bad Jack Chick tract. We are all victims os a conspiracy of freemasons, communists and Satanists.

They left out the Illuminati.
 
DominvsVobiscvm said:
What implications do you think this has?

Be afraid, be very afraid.
Click to expand...

Those who says that Peter is THE ROCK is now rocking it all up… just joking (and it’s not very funny I suppose).

I say to these people: go back to Vatican Council II, and submit to authority as Jesus did. Let God Himself raise us up to life again. Get away from dead traditions of men, preserve the LIVING TRADITION that is unity of the body. See what the Council is teaching us about “Divine Revelation” (Dei Verbum). Has Divine Revelation completed or is it still going on in The Church ?

NAB Hebrew 9:

8
In this way the holy Spirit shows that the way into the sanctuary had not yet been revealed while the outer tabernacle still had its place.
9
This is a symbol of the present time, 8 in which gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the worshiper in conscience
10
but only in matters of food and drink and various ritual washings: regulations concerning the flesh, imposed UNTIL THE TIME OF THE NEW ORDER.

Seek what is true. Denominations are evil’s game. The Church is one body. Believe it.

God bless
 
40.png
Socrates:
This looks like another case of rad-trads jumping into bed uncritically with anti-Catholics.

This says it all for me:
Although the book deals with alleged Vatican corruption in terms of money and power and has a decidedly liberal flavor, Williams also–almost as a side-note–includes some straightforward, objective information on the papal conclave of 1958.
Click to expand...
The above basically says, “Even though we disagree with the author on most issues, some of what he says supports our agenda so it must therefore be considered credible.” :ehh:

What implications does this have? Zero, nada, jack-squat, etc.
Click to expand...
Socrates summed it up perfectly for me.

I would also add that one should be careful when reading someone who cites secondary sources (such as in this case, citing a book which cites other allegedly declassified documents). One entry even appears to cite a third tier source…which really makes me suspicious. Not to mention, when I see alleged sources titled,‘Department of State secret dispatch, “John XXIII”’ …Ya, right, I’m sooo believing that is a legitimate document. But whether it is or it is not a legitimate document, unless I read the actual source material (not a 2nd or 3rd tiered source) then I am unconvinced. It is way to easy to distort and misrepresent secondary sources…especially when those secondary sources do not appear sincere themselves. Don’t belive me? Then go read the Da Vinci Code and you’ll get a first hand account of how easy it is to do.
 
Without rewsearching, (so I may be wrong), I believe that when elected,a potential pope still has to accept.

A lay person could be selected pope, but he would have to accept, be ordained and be elevated to bishop perfor he could be enthroned;

I will look it up soon unless someone else can confirm or deny.

MrS
 
No, I’m not a Sede, or a rad-Trad.

What you guys have said is the obvious answer, and in my intellectual panic I completely overlooked it myself. Siri, even if elected, obviously didn’t accept, so John’s subsequent election was completely valid.

I’m such a fart.

I must be inhaling too many fumes from the fry machine at work. It’s making by damage go brained!

Saint Genesius the Comedian, help me find a *paying * acting gig . . . soon!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top