In the Vatican II sect, everything is backwards. The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is God-centered, gets replaced by the Novus Bogus "mass" which is man-centered. Likewise, the primary purpose of the sacraments (which, save Baptism and Holy Matrimony they rendered invalid) are made subordinate to the secondary purpose. Hence, to give but one example, Extreme Unction is now called "Anointing of the Sick." The primary purpose of remitting sin and strengthening the soul against what could be its final battle with Satan before it appears before the Judgment Seat of God, is replaced with restoration of bodily health (secondary effect, if God knows it to be for the good of the soul).
Now, the old spiritual truth that we should "love the sinner, but hate the sin," gets inverted by Antipope Francis. According to an article in the National Catholic (sic) Reporter, the Modernist Vatican will neither confirm nor deny that Francis met with a transgendered Spaniard ( in this case a woman who was surgically mutilated into a "man"). There are numerous news reports that Frankie hugged the 48 year old Diego Media Lejarraga at a private meeting on January 24th in Vatican City.
Sodomite/pervert "rights" supporters are jumping for joy. They are using this occasion to show how "inclusive" and "welcoming" Francis is of everyone. Lejarraga said a local priest called him the "devil's daughter," but despite this he wrote to Frankie in the hopes of being accepted and receiving a "papal blessing." According to the Spanish newspaper Hoy, Frankie told the unrepentant pervert, "You are a son of God and the Church loves you and accepts you as you are." (Emphasis mine)
Yes, God loves sinners but hates sin. By telling this disturbed person he need not repent, Frankie is condoning his sin, his perversion, and his march towards Hell. The pervert even attended with his fiancée (wouldn't it be a kick in the pants if it was a "woman" that used to be a man!). Francis really hates this man. The priest who allegedly called Lejarraga the "devil's daughter" actually had more charity. I wouldn't advise saying that, but would definitely let the person know God loves him but not what he has done. He must seek psychological help from a Christian therapist, and spiritual guidance to both repent and stay chaste. This is true charity which the world hates and will not tolerate.
New Ways Ministry, lead by Sr. Jeannine Gramick, is dedicated to normalizing perversion of all stripes. She wrote to Frankie that she will be leading an "LGBT pilgrimage" to Rome next month. She wants unrepentant sodomites and other unrepentant sinners to receive Vatican II "communion." (Deo gratias, it's invalid!). She shot back Frankie's own words that the Body and Blood of Christ is spiritual nourishment that we need to grow in our love-relationship with God, not "a prize to be awarded those who are worthy." Yes, no one is worthy to receive Christ, but you must first be a friend of God by being in the state of grace.
Morality is so turned upside down, few can find their way in this every increasingly wicked world. I saw a post by a young woman decrying "revenge porn." That's when a former boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse posts nude pictures of their ex on the Internet, shaming them. This young woman (unmarried) blamed what happened to her as misogyny. She still gets emails calling her a whore over a year later. While the behavior of those men is deplorable, why would she take such photos in the first place? Fornication and porn doth not a virtuous woman make. So what does she do? Unbelievably, she puts up naked photos of herself on her own website!! She wanted to let the world know that the only thing wrong was "lack of consent" and invasion of her "right to privacy." Porn is OK with her as long as you want to exploit your body and be an occasion of mortal sin to others. No repentance or acknowledgement that what was done is wrong.
This year the US Supreme Court is poised to declare sodomite "marriage" a constitutional "right" in the name of "equality" and "privacy." We kill unborn children under the same banner of "right to privacy" and "reproductive freedom" which will give women "equality." As Pope Leo XIII wrote in Temetsi, "The world has heard enough of the so -called "rights of man." Let it hear something of the rights of God." But the world will hear none of it. Instead, we think "tolerance" and "acceptance" of those in unrepentant sin is a "virtue." The world will even declare such evils as "rights."People who judge things as sin and demand penance are denounced as "mean-spirited," "exclusive," and even "evil."
We are now reaping the fruit of such misguided modern morals. New evidence (3,500+ consecutive news reports from China to the US to Russia over the past three years) shows that the portion of a society's child molestation attributable to homosexual abuse is strongly and directly related to its degree of acceptance of homosexuality (See Family Research Institute Jan/2015 bulletin by Dr. Paul Cameron, PhD.). Actions speak louder than words, and Antipope Francis is showing that, despite what still passes for official Vatican policy in some aspects, he wants acceptance of any unrepentant sinner and, by extension, to the sin itself. Unfortunately, those he deludes will find Hell quite intolerable and unacceptable.
I'm reminded of 2 Timothy 3:13, "But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error."
Any thoughts on the guy who says he is pope who was appointed by cardinal Siri? They claim he is the true pope driven underground.their website is WWW.POPEINRED.COM.
ReplyDeleteAlso is the 3 days of darkness valid? The more i learn,the more confused I become.Thank You Deo Gratias
There is way too much wrong with the site. Their entire tirade against Abp. Lefebvre being a "non-priest and non-bishop" comes from the Summa Theologica of St Thomas Aquinas. They never cite to post-tridentine theologians, and are wrong on several counts. I might do a post on this in the near future. The very idea of a pope who is in fear for his life and that of his family for over 30 years is incredulous. Why wouldn't he stand up and allow himself and even family members, to be martyrs for Christ and the Truth? Suddenly, just before he dies, he sets up a "hierarchy"? Who's his successor? They never say. Lastly, I would always avoid ANYONE who eschews dogmatic theology for private revelations, whether approved by the Church (Fatima) or not. Worry not about "three days of darkness." Worry about saving your soul with the light of God's grace through the Traditionalist Catholic Church and trust in God's KNOWN revelation!
ReplyDelete---Introibo
Thank you for responding.I have exact same thoughts on the 'Pope in Red'! Eagerly anticipating article on these people.Dominus Vobiscum
ReplyDeleteThe 'Pope in Red' site is NOT the place to learn about Cardinal Siri. Most of the research posted there was done by other people and then assembled and posted (without the original researchers permission) in the most incoherent manner. Plus there is no public, or private information that I know of that indicates Siri appointed any successors.
ReplyDeleteThere is an abundance of evidence that indicates someone elected pope 2 days before Roncalli. The entire transcription of Vatican Radio was published the next after the initial white smoke signal, saying there can be no doubt, a pope has been elected.
The movie papal imposters is a better source, eclipse of the church is a good website and there are a few others
http://whitesmoke1958.com/
The site you suggest is much better. Is it possible that Siri was pope and died in 1989 without a successor? Possibly, but I'm not convinced by the manifest weight of the credible evidence, and it leaves us in the same situation--sedevacantism; not some secret pope as "Pope In Red" would lead us to believe through its confusing and misguided writings.
ReplyDelete---Introibo
Well the most direct evidence is the emission of white smoke 2 days before the election of John XXIII. We were not talking about a puff of white smoke or a confusion signal, there was a very clear emission of what smoke which signaled to the world that a pope had been elected. For hundreds of years they used the same process. Moreover John XXIII acted like a usurper right from the minute he took the papal office, calling a council, changing the canon of the mass, etc.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand Siri did not ever claim to be pope, at least not publicly which makes it very hard to make a claim. That's not to say it won't be revealed at some point but regardless if he was indeed the lawful pope who would present the evidence to, the usurpers?
To me the Siri hypothesis makes the most sense, I do not see how so many traditionalists can dismiss it so easily while they do mental gymnastics trying to accept Francis and the rest as popes.
It's dismissed because Siri celebrated the novus ordo, accepted Vatican 2, and gave the homily at John Paul 1's funeral false mass.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Siri was probably never pope, or if he attained to the papacy, lost it by falling into heresy as using the Novus Bogus and accepting Montini, Luciani, and Wotyla would certainly demonstrate. Further, even if he had been pope, there is no successor, so it has no effect on sedevacantism in anyway.
DeleteOk, the first question to ask is, was someone else elected two days before John XXIII? If that is so, and they were forced aside, then the election of John XXIII was illegitimate right from the beginning as would be all of his appointments and subsequent papal elections, no drawn out debates necessary.
ReplyDeleteNext question, who was elected, this is less important that the first question because they were never in charge of the Church and hence were not able to implement anything.
Finally, we would have to ask if that person would have lost office for going along with heretics. And that question I seriously doubt any of us could answer. First of all, nobody knows what methods were used to keep Siri of the throne, some say it was threats on his life, id that was the case another pope by the name of Innocent II ran away and hid in france for 8 years before he was re-instated as pope.
Another point was that Siri was virtually unknown outside of Italy and would have no chance of launching a successful bid to reclaim the papal throne. His best chance would be to go along and try to become pope at a future conclave. He said in a newspaper article published before the 1978 conclave that he would reverse the changes brought about by the conclave.
I would like a citation to the article where Siri allegedly claimed he would "undo Vatican II." If he was trying to "go along to try to reclaim his throne" how stupid could he be to say such a thing to Modernists?!
ReplyDeleteYour point is valid that if Siri were elected then forced out, Roncalli would be a usurper, but it really doesn't matter since a heretic can't be pope and we can be morally certain the Chair of St Peter has been vacant since 11/21/64 at the signing of Lumen Gentium.
Secondly, since Siri died in 1989, we're still in sedevacante since there would be no pope after him anyway.
Newsweek October 30 1958
ReplyDeleteIt talks about the article...that I'm referring too.
Cardinal Giuseppe Siri of Genoa, the conservative candidate who had led the
first round of balloting in the last conclave and hoped to do better this
time, opened the round by giving an exclusive interview to a reporter from
Turin's Gazzetta del Popolo. At the least, Siri was indiscreet: calling
himself the "most maligned man there is," he went on to attack the Vatican
Secretariat-and by implication John Paul I-by declaring that the late Pope's
first major speech was an "insignificant" effort prepared by the
Secretariat, not the Pope.
The reporter had agreed to embargo the interview until the conclave was in
session. But what Siri didn't know was that the reporter was a friend of
Siri's chief rival, Cardinal Giovanni Benelli of Florence, the kingmaker at
the last conclave and one who might emerge as Pope if the conservatives
could be headed off. The reporter telephoned Benelli to tell him of his
amazing scoop-and Benelli somehow persuaded him to break the embargo. On the
morning of the conclave, most of the electors found the Turin newspaper
mysteriously on their doorsteps. With that, Siri's chances were dead. But
Benelli's move backfired, too. "As it turned out," says Father Franxis X.
Murphy, a veteran Vaticanologist, "their acrimonious rivalry insured the
election of a non-Italian Pope."
Very interesting!!
ReplyDeleteIt matters a lot, when the conclave produces a pope that candidate is chosen by the Holy Ghost and its not up to your discretion whether you accept him or not.
ReplyDeleteLumen Genitum? is that the one where it says the Church subsists or something like that, not sure how many laymen are qualified to call that heresy, plus its a document that very few people even know about. I'm not saying it isn't heresy just that it's not going to convince very many people.
Lastly, I'm not certain that Cardinal Siri did not appoint appoint a successor, he was best friends with Archbishop Pintonello who was the highest ranking Church official not to sign the documents of Vatican II some speculated Siri appointed him and he died in 2001. But even if there was someone, who would believe him? Who would you go to to have him reinstated? Do you think the SSPX or CMRI would accept him? Just saying, the situation is a long way from being resolved, it's very unlikely that any one of the traditional factions are right on every point so don't become too attached to your positions.
This is an excerpt from a book published in 1976 in Genoa by a man who knew Siri and published articles for Genoese newspapers on religious matters. It is translated from Italian and a bit rough at the beginning but you should get the jist of it. The name of the book was "The Church of Cardinal Siri"
ReplyDelete"But the serious question for him was the fact that every day the local and national press spoke of the protest of the Church in Genoa.
From Rome they were content to establish that not only the diocese but also more openly rigidly anti-conciliar were affected by the dispute. Not wanting to use more methods of discipline they leave
Cardinal Siri be so that no bishop could more legitimately, second to the texts of the council. Cardinal Siri was so good at the game against Rome they did not want to push the bishop into schism by
preventing anti-conciliar gestures. Whoever would bother to ask the Bishops' Conference news on the matter were told to be patient because Cardinal Siri of Genoa would soon be gone. How many times was it
announced that the pope had asked Cardinal Siri of Genoa to leave! But Cardinal Siri after the ouster from the presidency of the bishops' conference did not want to lose the last place with which he had left to lead the battle against the church council. He still had friends in
Rome, was linked to many bishops who did not approve of the line of the secretariat of the Conference of Bishops. From all over the world came to him consent to his pastoral letters. He always felt at the
center of the anti-concliar, worldwide restoration movement, a kind of anti-pope in pectore."(!!!)
I'm going to do a post on this matter! Suffice it to say Limen Gentium is indeed heretical and has, in fact, convinced many people of "Frankenchurch." It is from the new ecclesiology that the new sect arises!
ReplyDeleteLook for my next post.
--Introibo
So Siri watches the church and western world crumble,implode,dissolve,and descend into immorality,chaos,blasphemy yet does nothing but give an interview.He doesn't sound like a good leader.
ReplyDeleteKinda like Mary and John the Apostle watching Jesus being crucified. This is reality not a Hollywood movie bud, countries get taken over, leaders get assassinated and sometimes the bad guys win.
ReplyDeleteSiri couldn't, at some point between 1958-1990, call 1 press conference and warn the 1 billion catholics of an internal takeover?If this is true, he literally did nothing to warn or help many souls!
ReplyDeleteHow could a true Pope literally turn his back on Jesus Christ & celebrate the Novus Ordo abomination of desolation? Sorry Fellas I am convinced he is just a useful distraction.
ReplyDeleteArchbishop Thuc celebrated it too, as well as Archbishop Lefebvre. Plus all I've ever seen is one picture of Siri doing the new mass which could have easily been photoshopped. I have a book by a modernist priest from Genoa who didn't like Siri and he wrote that Siri told his priests not to say the new mass in his diocese.
ReplyDeleteI spoke with another gentleman from Genoa who said the masons in the Church "played some awful tricks on Siri." Just saying that if all he had to do was hold a press conference I think he would have done that. I've already posted one record of Siri being betrayed by the media, what makes you think he would have had any cooperation from any significant media sources?
I think you are forgetting that the majority of Catholics during that time period didn't have a really big problem with all the changes.
As I understand it, to Siri, the loss of the mass was a symptom of a bigger problem, the loss of truth specifically the loss of logic and ontology through the centuries.
Not sure what the final verdict will be, but the evidence is there that Siri did his best to do damage control. It was reported that Paul VI was going to approve birth control and most of the bishops were in favor but Siri almost single-handedly shut them down. As of now we just don't know enough to make a judgement on him one way or another.
I agree but I do know growing up catholic many many many people had a problem with Vatican 2 in the 70's.Secondly, Thus & Levebvre weren't the pope.Again he gave the sermon at JP1'S Novus ordo funeral service.I know what you're saying and could see your perspective being true.The problem is all of are shooting in the dark.Looking forward to your post on Cardinal Siri.
ReplyDelete