In this day and age of modern technology, Siri is an application for Apple's iOS which works as a personal assistant and knowledge navigator. Ask a question, and Siri will answer in English with a female voice. Ask it "Who was elected pope in 1958?" and it will respond by mentioning an enigma in Traditionalist circles--the "Siri Theory." This theory proclaims as fact that in the 1958 conclave to succeed Pope Pius XII, it was actually Giuseppe Cardinal Siri who was elected as Pope Gregory XVII, but was forced under grave duress to step aside for Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII). What significance does this theory hold for Traditionalists? What are the practical consequences? It is these questions I will now explore.
1. What evidence is there that Siri was elected pope and not Roncalli?
On October 26, 1958, white smoke appeared from the conclave to succeed Pope Pius XII signaling the election of a new Vicar of Christ. Black smoke came out about two hours later, and the white smoke was claimed to be a mistake. On October 28, 1958, Antipope John XXIII was declared the new pontiff. It is claimed that Cardinal Siri, of Genoa, had been elected and taken the name of Pope Gregory XVII. Siri, a staunch anti-Communist and anti-Modernist was (according to proponents of the theory) blackmailed into stepping aside. Some say it was threats against his life and his family, others say it was threats from Communist Russia that they would launch nuclear missiles at Rome. There is also a credible report from one FBI source that suggests Siri was elected. (See The Vatican Exposed: Money, Murder, and the Mafia by Paul L. Williams, 2003, Prometheus Books).
Canon 185 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states, "Resignation is invalid by law if it was made out of grave fear unjustly inflicted, fraud, substantial error, or simony." Had such an occurrence taken place, Siri would have indeed remained pope, and Roncalli an antipope. My spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD, was a peritus (expert) at Vatican II and fought against the Modernists. He told me, based on his personal knowledge of many Cardinals who were involved in the 1958 conclave, that the real fight was between Cardinals Ottaviani and Siri. Ottaviani was so confident of his election, he had already picked out his papal name---Pius XIII. When he and Siri locked for votes and neither could muster 2/3 plus one for election, a small band of Cardinals came up with a plan for a "transitional" pope---and Roncalli was elected. The white smoke could have been an error, and there is evidence for this as well. The explanation by Fr. DePauw and human error could account for the white smoke.
2. If Siri had been elected Pope, would he have remained such until his death in 1989?
Siri certainly didn't act like a pope. He signed all of the documents at Vatican II, especially Lumen Gentium, the damnable document with the heretical ecclesiology of "Frankenchurch" i.e., that there is an entity known as the "Church of Christ" that is distinct from the Roman Catholic Church, but resides there in its "fullness." This Church of Christ resides elsewhere according to how many "elements" the sect possesses. To have all the elements like the RC Church is best, but to have some is good as well and leads to salvation. This trashes the necessity of Church membership for salvation, and allows for Francis to maintain "Proselytism is nonsense."
Siri also said the Novus Bogus invalid Vatican II bread and wine service, never supported any Traditionalist group (sedevacantist or SSPX), and publicly recognized Rocalli (John 23), Montini (Paul 6), Luciani (JP I) and Wotyla (JP II) as "popes." He used the invalid Vatican II "sacraments," and gave the "homily" at the "mass" of Christian Burial for John Paul I (Luciani). Of course, we can always concoct boogeymen to say he was "coerced" into all of this for over 30 years. You know; Masonic death threats, Communist threats of nuclear war, etc. But how credible does all this sound? Couldn't he have at least done as much as Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer of Campos, Brazil and refuse to use the new "mass" and "sacraments" in his diocese? Despite claims by some that he did this, it is unsubstantiated. The fact that he used the new "mass" and "sacraments" is incontrovertible. Seeing the Vatican II sect in the 1980s, he couldn't call a press conference before his death? (On that score, supporters will claim that he was held to silence in the conclave by a seal not unlike confession).
Had he been elected, it seems that he would have lost his office by becoming a heretic, unless you posit that he was under constant grave duress for over 30 years!
3. Where is the pope now? Did Siri leave a successor?
If Siri was pope, and if he didn't lose office through heresy (both very big IFs), did he appoint a successor? There is no indication that such was ever even attempted by Siri. There is a website thepopeinred.com, LOADED with error in many things, which claims that Siri's successor will be revealed after "Three Days of Darkness." As usual in all things claiming to be Catholic but are bizarre, private revelations are exalted above the teachings of the pre-Vatican II theologians. It's always about visions, apparitions, etc. When theology is even attempted, its restricted to St. Thomas Aquinas, as if theology stopped with him. I will have more to say regarding "thepopeinred.com" next week. I would be remiss if I didn't say there exists a small group which holds that Siri, before his death, had appointed a "Pope Gregory XVIII" who (for some reason or other) is "in hiding." They are called "sedeimpedists" since the pope is impeded from claiming the Chair of Peter, distinguishing them from "conclavists" who "elected" an antipope (e.g. "Pope" Michael).
4. What does the "Siri Theory" have to do with Traditionalists in the practical order?
Nothing. If he were the pope (at least during the conclave and before the signing of the Vatican II documents) this would make John XXII an Antipope--as well as Montini (Paul VI). However, we already know that these two papal claimants could not be popes on wholly separate and independent grounds. Ditto for JP I and JP II, had he somehow retained his office until his death in 1989. We are still in a state of sedevacante, and the Vatican II sect must be opposed. A "secret successor'? I'll deal with that one next week--there isn't any.
Who was elected in 1958? Only Siri (Giuseppe) can answer that one for certain, and having passed into eternity May 2, 1989, he won't be answering.
I've read through many newspaper articles leading up to the 1958 conclave, none of them mention Ottiavani as a serious contender, although he was Cardinal he was never consecrated a bishop which makes it more unlikely. Furthermore Siri and Ottiavani were the best of friends, Siri in an interview discussed how they unplugged his mic at Vatican II, and how that turned him into a bull attacking the modernist with everything he had. I think you might be thinking of Spellman.
ReplyDeleteI have articles from italian newspapers discussing Siri being called to Rome by Pius XII and a lot of speculation that he would be named secretary of state, setting him up for the papacy. And remember the white smoke came on the first day, in heavy contentions would have come after that day.
Another very strange thing is that Roncalli kept everyone locked in the Conclave for another day even while several of the conclaves were ailing. Plus one had fallen and fractured his spine, and another was brought in on a stretcher after being struck by a car.
Hopefully I will get a chance to comment more. I read that Gommar Depauw was asked by John Paul I to head a commission to oversee the repeal of the Novus Ordo, any truth to that?
Ottavianni was indeed a contender for the papacy. Fr. De Pauw had info far more reliable than what anyone could get in a paper as he knew all the players personally. Cardinal -Priests were taken as seriously as Cardinal-Bishops. Ottavianni was consecrated by Roncalli in 1962, right before Vatican II. He was a major player once again in 1963, so much so, Montini placed the 80 year exclusion rule into effect. Ottavianni was 16 years older than Siri, and while they were friends, they were both ambitious. Fr. De Pauw did tell me he was contacted personally by Luciani who told him he had enough of Vatican II and the P-2 Masonic Lodge. He summoned Father to Rome to head up a special commission and receive the red hat. Father was convinced that he had seen the light and was prepared to embrace Catholicism and abjure Modernism. Luciani was found dead just a couple of days later. He said he was murdered by the Modernists/Masons controlling the Vatican bank. There was a book that claimed he was murdered; "In God's Name." I never saw the alleged communication from Luciani, so you can make of it what you will.
Delete--Introibo
The main problem I see is that there is less evidence that the Church was sedevacante in the first 1958 conclave/election of Gregory XVII (FBI records, etc.) and to therefore DIY one's own prophecies while condoning the followers of Gregory XVII and his successor for plausibly believing certain mystics were actually talking about something they witnessed and are a part of is childish, to say the least. The Glorious Vatican Council in 1870 infallibly stated that St. Peter *HAS (not will have) perpetual successors. "...And I see the King of Rome with his Cross and his tiara, shaking the dust off his shoes, and hastening in his flight to other shores. Thy Church, O Lord, is torn apart by her own children. One camp is faithful to the fleeing Pontiff, the other is subject to the new government of Rome which has broken the Tiara. But Almighty God will, in His mercy, put an end to this confusion and a new age will begin. Then, said the Spirit, this is the beginning of the End of Time." - Premol Prophecy. Who "broke" the papal tiara? Anti-pope Paul VI.
DeleteThis article sums up my thoughts on Cardinal Siri.Between him & Fatima,today's false tradionalists act as if the Catholic faith started in 1917.Fake priest Nicholas Gruner is the worst.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Gruner has been screaming that the sky is falling to receive donations for decades!
DeleteEver thought of making documentary on Fr.DePauw?
ReplyDeleteI'm not a filmmaker but he would be a most interesting subject!! The Board of Directors of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement (which he founded) would not allow access to his journals. They claim to be following his wishes. Whether or not true (or why he would want that) is unknown. My 24 years of experiences with him I wouldn't trade for the world!
ReplyDeleteYou see how far Luciani got, why is it so incredible that Siri was under duress for the remainder of his career?
ReplyDeleteDo you accept John XXIII as a valid Pope?
What evidence is there that the very clear emission of white smoke was a mistake?
Do I accept Roncalli as pope? No.
DeleteCould Siri have been under constant duress for over 30 years? Not logically impossible, but IF he had and retained the papacy, until 1989, it doesn't change the current situation one bit. He would also be the ultimate coward, in my opinion. There was a report in the Italian press claiming the white smoke was mistaken.
Tinkering with an idea about producing a 30 minute documentary on Fr.James Wathen.
ReplyDeleteHe would be an interesting subject!
DeleteYou were blessed Fr.Depauw was a holy priest.I've listened to his Quo Primum sermon from 1974 on YouTube.
ReplyDeleteFr DePauw was one of a kind. The best of the best.
ReplyDeleteWell if Roncalli was not pope then you have the Holy Ghost picking a heretic at the 1958 Conclave, which I think is impossible, add that to the clear and prolonged emission of white smoke from two days before signalling to the world that a pope was elected and the puzzle starts to come together. Producing the white smoke is a simple procedure, they produced black smoke a few hours before at the morning session but somehow forget how to do it by the afternoon and then continue to dump dry straw into the stove for a full 5 minutes to the thunderous applause of 400,000 people in St. Peter's square.
ReplyDeleteNow Cardinal Siri did say this,
“I say this because I have great remorse. I have faith in the forgiveness of the Lord, and, therefore, I am at peace. During the first two conclaves in which I participated, my candidature was presented by an influential cardinal. He himself told me that all the French were behind him. The others, then, followed the French. The Germans held back, but gradually, along the way, joined the rest. I said no, and if you elect me I will say no. I have made a mistake, I understand it today. Today? For some years. I did wrong, for I would have avoided completing certain actions. . . I wish to say — but I am afraid to say it — making certain mistakes. Therefore I have had great remorse and I have asked forgiveness of God. I hope that God forgives me.”
Which indicates he felt really bad about something, He also seems to explain that he had the votes and then tells them if they elect him he will say no, but he doesn't tell us what happened. I'm thinking they all voted for him, the will of the Holy Ghost was undeniable, and he accepted, white smoke was released and they turned on him, which was their plan all along.
I can't say one way or another what the final verdict on him will be but we certainly don't have the whole story.
Not sure what we are to do as far as getting our next pope if there is no successor. Our Lord said that he will build his Church upon the rock, if there is no rock (pope) then...Not sure how the Church can function.
Yes there are things I have trouble with, especially the fact that Siri never publicly claimed to be the lawful pope. However I don't know what he was up against, what effective action he could have taken, I do know that he thought the problem was bigger than the mass, that the CHurch had been in decline for several hundred years.
Read Cum ExApostolatus Officio of Pope Paul IV. It clearly states: "6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
ReplyDelete(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
Therefore, it was considered a real possibility a heretic could be chosen, the Holy Ghost could permit such an invalid election. The Church can function without a pope for many years according to the teachings of the pre-Vatican II theologians, such as Dorsch.
ReplyDeleteGreat post.
ReplyDeleteCould you please give your reasons for not believing Roncalli was elected Pope. Was he elected and then fallen into heresy or was he not elected at all?
Also could you point me to that work and part where Dorsch argues for a lengthy interregnum? That would be very useful. Thank you :)
I believe Roncalli never attained papal office because he was a heretic. He had been suspected of Modernism for years by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottavianni. Unfortunately, he had powerful protectors in the Vatican (Bea), who had the ear of Pope Pius XII and convinced him action against him was not necessary.
ReplyDeleteAs to the quote from Dorsch:
“The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
“Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…
“For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.
“These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary.” (de Ecclesia 2:196–7)
I think that Paul IV's comments deal more with heresy than with the papal Conclave, notice he says "even if he is unanimously accepted by all the Cardinals" as which appeared to be the case with Roncalli. The emphatic "even if" suggests that such a scenario would under normal circumstances be impossible yet with Paul VI, JP II etc we had exactly that, so its not impossible. 1958 is different because we have the white smoke from two days before.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that catches my eye with Siri is the infiltrators being weary of a valid pope and the Holy spirit.So when it says they elected Siri,then shoved him aside and appointed John 23,it doesn't sound far fetched.
ReplyDeleteNot only that but as soon as John XXIII he started what appeared to be a carefully crafted plan to ruin the church, he called the council, he changed the liturgy, he promoted Montini, and then you had the council where certain Cardinals (bad ones) were acting with unity of purpose like they were part of a carefully crafted plan that was arranged long in advance. Obviously the plan included installing a false pope, perhaps even liquidating a previous pope with Siri being set up from the very beginning.
ReplyDeleteWe are not looking so much at heresy but rather a criminal takeover of the Church by enemy agents.
The more I study this issue, the more I tend to agree with you. The Masonic "Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita" even talks about taking over the Church like this,
DeleteAs you read in my post, I do not contest that it is possible that Siri was elected. But even if true, he had no successor, and it does nothing to change the state of sedevacante. We must oppose the Satanic Vatican II sect with all our might.
ReplyDeleteThen we are not that far apart, I just think explaining that the Church was taken over in 1958 by criminal elements gives people a better perspective. It is hard to prove that Roncalli was heretic, plus they can tie us up in arguments about whether Vatican II was ex-cathedra, etc.
ReplyDeleteMy video series is called Papal Imposters and can be seen here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60NrxZuyl0Y&list=PL0A80823C5E338B64
personal sins, including crimes, do not remove from the Pontificate, save pertinacious teaching of heresy apostasy and schism iirc, which sever one from the Church irregardless of office or state of life..
DeleteIntroibo is correct regarding our present situation.Even if Siri was pope we are still in a state of sede vacante.
ReplyDeleteA few points:
ReplyDeleteMay I suggest the "Siri thesis" may have been another diversionary lie to prevent a legitimate conclave by remnant "traditionalists"? The fake white smoke of 1958 could have been done deliberately so that the V2 innovators could suggest for a while that trads have a "secret pope in exile" which they have control over, and some V2 innovator could have spread the rumor that Siri was elected. Siri's enigmatic response that he is "bound by the secret" paired with his silence towards the Vatican 2 revolution implies his consent and ill will and that he could be in on things, though maybe he was otherwise manipulated.
May I also suggest with that that the sedeprivationist thesis, made by des Lauriers, was also a diversionary tactic? des Lauriers worked with Ottaviani (and Bp. Thuc), and Ottaviani worked with Siri. "At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), [Siri] sat on its Board of Presidency and, alongside Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Thomas Cooray, he was part of the association of traditionalist Council fathers named Coetus Internationalis Patrum. However, Siri once said, 'I would describe myself as an independent, a man who walks alone and is not a member of any group.'"
These people all knew one another and helped orchestrate the chaos that resulted in many factions of "traditionalism", with all efforts of a conclave being ignored or suppressed. The SSPX and Bp. Thuc's bishops held talks about holding elections, but none materialized, all the while all kinds of other confusions did. May I suggest that their conclavist efforts were only used to undermine, out in the open, a conclavist effort by promoting one and then allowing it to fail and thus claim that such a conclave was "not the will of the Holy Ghost", while, to the contrary, the R&R position and sedeprivationist thesis, etc., apparently were?
You may be aware of the theory of "controlled opposition". May I suggest that most of "traditionalism's" leaders were controlled opposition? That is, they posed as conservative in order to appeal to "conservatives" who rightly responded in opposition to Vatican 2, but they were in cahoots with the V2 innovators and were merely neutralizing opposition with ineffective false solutions.
"Had he been elected, it seems that he would have lost his office by becoming a heretic". We do not know if this is actually possible. St. Robert Bellarmine apparently debunked all cases of alleged papal heresy, and the V2 "popes" were pre-election heretics. So, this may be possible, but this is debated. Obviously the problem is that "the first See shall be judged by no one" so if a pope were to become a heretic, this would be a nightmare to deal with.
The "Siri thesis" is an appeal to secrecy. Let me suggest also the idea that a conclave happened behind the Iron Curtain with remnant true bishops was another diversion from supporting a conclave.
(continued)
(continued)
ReplyDeletePope Michael is identified as an "antipope" in the post. However, who is he an antipope in opposition towards? "An antipope (Latin: antipapa) is a person who, in opposition to the one who is generally seen as the legitimately elected Pope, makes a significantly accepted competing claim to be the Pope" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope
This is the only first election that was open to the public and known, and as such it would seem that pope Michael is the pope. Even calling him an "antipope" is a tacit admission that someone else is the pope and perhaps "nonpope" would be a more accurate label, from the sede vacante position in describing him.
I do totally agree with the thrust of this post though, that the Siri thesis needs to go and I don't personally find ample evidence to support it. However, even assuming it was true and Siri had no successor, pope Michael's conclave happened after Siri's death, so this doesn't conflict with the PM claim unless there was a Siri successor (which I see rumors of but no proof online unless anyone has any links).
Related, see: "Links Between Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Ngo-Dihn Thuc" http://vaticaninexile.com/?p=670
Siri Theory: A good example of anti-Scholastic thinking
ReplyDeletehttp://betrayedcatholics.com/wpcms/free-content/reference-links/7-recent-articles/siri-theory-a-good-example-of-anti-scholastic-thinking/
Siri thesis: http://www.geocities.ws/prakashjm45/sirithesis.html
TSB: Some Thoughts On The Sirian Theory
http://www.geocities.ws/prakashjm45/tsb.sirianism.html
Please see my post "Partially Bad And Completely Insane" of 12/1/14. It answers your arguments for the deluded farmer David Bawden aka "Pope" Michael.
ReplyDeleteA conclave does not mean inviting your mommy, daddy, and a couple of nice neighbors to your Kansas farmhouse. What we need is an imperfect general council, and there are precise requirements for such.
Interestingly, you cite to a webpage of Theresa Benns, the woman responsible for setting up the "farmhouse conclave" and now repudiates both Bawden and her previous statements to become a "Home Aloner." Can someone so completely out of touch with the situation on the Church be an authority on anything?
While I would never cite to "Wikipedia" as a source, you are correct that "Antipope" is not the proper title for either David Bawden ("Pope Michael") or Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope Francis"). "False Pope" would be the correct appellation, but I use "antipope" as shorthand for same. People get the idea quicker with no explanation necessary.
Bawden is a liar. In 1990 there were no computers yet he claims to have contacted "all true Catholics" to come to his "conclave." I was 25 years old in 1990 and working as a NYC science teacher. I received no such notice, nor did Fr. DePauw, the leader of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement, who began the public resistance to Vatican II in 1964. I knew at least 100 Traditionalists at the time, and none of them received any "notice of a conclave."
Furthermore, how does a farmer with no formal education above high school understand the dense pages of complex Latin explaining the procedures for a conclave? He took his lead from the above discredited Mrs. Benns--not exactly the next Aquinas.
Bellarmine debunked all cases of alleged papal heresy? Not by a long shot. All pre-Vatican II theologians taught that the pope, as an individual, could fall into heresy and lose the pontificate. See "Traditionalists, Infallibility, and the Pope" available online at traditionalmass.org.
And what of "Bp" Bob Biarnesen, the dubious at best "bishop" who "ordained" and "consecrated" him? Where is he? Why isn't he mentioned on Bawden's website? Why isn't he a "cardinal" out proselytizing for Bawden?
"Pope" Michael is a sad, and pitiful man. He needs professional help for his delusions. Let's hope he does so to prevent the next "conclave" from taking place with six people between the pigsty and the chicken coop.
Archbishop Biaresen passed away.
DeleteI am sorry to hear that. However, it makes me wonder even more: Why wouldn't Bawden honor him on his website? The only "bishop" to support him and give him support. "Strange" doesn't even begin to describe such lack of acknowledgement.
DeleteRelatively new to traditional catholicism,going on 4 years this spring.The more I learn about church history,the more I think catholic groups holding fast to the traditions should hold a conclave.If Bawden was elected, re-ordained/re-consecrated by a valid bishop,I would have no problem recognizing him as Pope.Until that moment,he will remain irrelevant to most of us.
ReplyDeleteReplying to above and this post:
DeleteSame for me, it's about 4 years now.
Bp. Biersen is alive, I've emailed him. Pope Michael was consecrated by him in 2012. Now, suppose the ordination and consecration had been videotaped and uploaded online. Then people would split hairs over if Bp. Biersen's unfilmed consecration was valid. Many of the "trad" consecrations have no such documentation, but people aren't questioning them. Additionally, if enough people were under PM and had doubts, I suggested there could be a conditional consecration in front of everyone.
Fr. DePauw wasn’t a sede at that time, neither were the others probably, so they weren't contacted.
The attack on Mrs. Benns is an ad hominem, nad Pope Michael isn't and wasn’t a farmer as far as I know.
Here's a new idea: what about getting PM, and the conclave antipopes to step down, and hold a new conclave with willing sedes/sspx/etc.? We could set a goal to elect within a certain time frame or at least hope to do so within a couple decades. At least then a definitive solution to the Vatican 2 crisis would be promoted. We have the internet now so we can organize. This was just something I was pondering especially as a political move rather than to twist arms to get people to accept PM. I wouldn't hold my breath on sede groups becoming more united so now's as good a time as ever to work on something like this.
Sorry I had Biersen passed away more than a few times.Just goes to show misinformation is abundant.
DeleteOnce more, I'll repeat myself:
Delete1. If "Bp." Biersen is alive, why isn't he a "cardinal" proselytizing for Bawden? Why isn't he mentioned on his website? His orders are dubious at best so it's not even the secrecy part that's the problem. The whole thing reeks of something strange.
Some of my friends WERE sedes and were not contacted. Please explain how he was able to discern all the Traditionalists in the world, what there position on the pope was, and then contact them in 1990, before computers! It's a huge farce/lie.
3. My statements on Mrs. Benns are not ad hominem. She sets up a "conclave" of six people on a farm in Kansas, then repudiates the whole thing to become a Home Aloner. This is not someone who knows what she is talking about, and no one should heed her.
4. If Bawden isn't a farmer, he's even more sad and pathetic. What has this man done with his life except pretend to be something he isn't (pope) and live off his aged mother while leading people like you into error?
5. I admire your goal to restore the papacy. However, it must be in God's due time, not ours. All the requirements for an imperfect general council must be met. Until such time, I urge you to join the SSPV or CMRI and receive true doctrine and sacraments from real priests.
I understand the concern about Bp. Biersen. However, I thought of a new defense: certainly you can ask the question of the validity of the consecration, but PM has stated that they are valid. Thus, judging the consecration doubtful would be judging the pope. Hence, another argument would be needed to invalidate PM's reign.
DeleteA reasonable effort was made to contact all eligible electors, as books were sent to all the chapels listed in an equivalent of today's Traditio listing: Radko Jansky's Catholic Traditionalist Directory. Sedes who were in the SSPX would not have been eligible as they were part of a schismatic sect, etc. Since few supported this conclave effort, that's why I was suggesting the possibility of a new conclave. An imperfect general council is not the only way to elect a pope, nor the only way a man can become pope.
What Mrs. Benns wrote can be evaluated on its merits, regardless of mistakes she's made or authority she doesn't possess, hence why I believe this is a continued attack on her person rather than her claims.
The Church needs to recognize a man as pope immediately, in my understanding. Although there are temporary divisions, Introibo, I thank you for your writing and pray for true unity as immediately as possible! Let's pour our efforts into resolving these confusions once and for all by establishing a certainly elected Catholic man as pope!
May God lead as many souls to heaven as possible!
I'll agree with you in your desire for as many souls going to Heaven, and a certainly elected pope will come in God's time. When there is a general rejection of Vatican II (which I can see on the horizon with Frankie's plan to give the "communion" cracker to adulterers) then there may be enough unity for an imperfect general council. Yes, I believe such a council is the only way I can see a papacy being brought about. Van Noort briefly discussed the possibility of such if all the cardinals and pope were wiped out by a nuclear bomb. He never mentions getting six people together for an election in Kansas.
DeleteThis is a highly complex issue, and Mrs. Benns is unqualified to even attempt such. Her "farmhouse conclave" is the result of her work, as is the discredited "Home Alone" status to which she reverted. This is not an attack on her person, its showing her discredited ideas.
As to "Bp" Bob, the whole thing stinks. Even HE doesn't want to be publicly associated with Bawden! (At least not anymore). Your reasoning begs the question:
Bawden must be Bishop of Rome because he was consecrated a bishop by "Bp" Bob, and we know "Bp." Bob is valid because Bawden is Bishop of Rome and declared "Bp" Bob to be valid.
Also, there is no reasoning behind Bawden's declaration. Popes just don';t decide matters without great effort in reasoning. It was years that lead up to the great theology behind Apostolicae Curae of Pope Leo XIII. There was 40 years of research that went into "sacramentum Ordinis" of Pope Pius XII regarding the matter and form of Holy Orders. Here, Bawden writes nothing, never mention "Bp" Bob and yet even though we know NOTHING about Bob's theological training, nor even if he was indeed consecrated, he's valid because of Bawden's say so. Oh boy. I'll be praying for you
The only problem I see with conclave not happening is the disagreements with theology between sspx,cmri,sspv,independent's.No one can agree on anything so it seems no one would agree to a conclave.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting series of arguments, to be sure. However, I also see many errors and contradictions. Rather than list those, I will give a bit of history, first of David Bawden. I was in St. Mary's, KS in 1979. David Bawden was at that time either an SSPX seminarian, or had very recently been released from that condition as it was determined that he did not have a true vocation to the priesthood. He was acting, under Fr. Hector Bolduc, primarily as the chief sacristan and, sometimes, Master of Ceremonies for various religious functions of the SSPX then. Some time before arriving at St. Mary's, I had been in contact with a priest who had been originally ordained, then consecrated a bishop, by an Old Catholic prelate whose name I have for the moment forgotten. Also, while I was still at St. Mary's, I became friends with another old priest who has since died. This priest was at one time the rector of a seminary in his own country and was very familiar with what constitutes a proper candidate for the priesthood. David Bawden requested and was granted a talk with this priest concerning whether or not he had a true vocation to the priesthood. The old priest, after talking with David for quite some time came to the conclusion that he did not have a vocation, and told him so. David, after learning of my friendship the old Bishop I mentioned earlier, asked me repeatedly to contact this Old Catholic Bishop and ask him to ordain David. I finally did so, but the Bishop refused to have anything further to do with illicit ordinations or consecrations. Due to David's obvious (in my opinion) overweening pride and his constant attempts to be ordained despite the refusal of both the SSPX, the old seminary rector I mentioned, and the Old Catholic Bishop I knew, I mentioned to a friend at the time that it appeared to me that David would eventually become his own "Pope". Which he subsequently did. You are right: David is a liar and a complete phony. He is not and never has been "the Pope". (More later...maybe)
ReplyDeleteConcerning the contention that St. Robert Bellarmine taught that a pope could become an heretic: this is patently false. At best, it is simply a misreading, a misunderstanding, or a misinterpretation of what St. Robert in fact taught. What he said was that "...IF a true pope ever became an heretic, THEN he would automatically lose all office and would be excommunicate...." Even from this, it is clear that no one has, or has to, "judge the pope...", but he has excommunicated himself by his own actions. St. Robert's statement in this matter are, plainly, meant to be a "rhetorical answer" in response to the questions, "Can a True Pope ever become an heretic?" and, "If a True Pope ever became an heretic, what would be the result?"
ReplyDeleteSecondly, it seems obvious that you are not aware of St. Robert's tome, "CONTROVERSIARUM DE SUMMO PONTIFICE, LIBER QUARTUS, DE POTESTATE SPIRITUALI. This is the book in which he carefully examined all the cases of every true pope who had ever been accused of heresy up to his own time. He, as was natural to him, proved conclusively that such a thing had never, ever, in fact occurred, and goes even further in chapter 6 of that book to say, "Since it can be proven that no true pope has ever become an heretic, THIS IS A SIGN FROM HEAVEN THAT IT CAN NEVER OCCUR."
If what St. Robert teaches here is correct, and I, for one accept his authority on such matters far more readily than any of you modern self-taught theologians, then, for us, this tells us that, since these antipopes can be proven, for the most part, to be heretics, then THEY WERE NEVER TRUE POPES TO BEGIN WITH.
(More later...perhaps...)
The late Fr. Gommar De Pauw was a sedevacantist heretic who apparently lost his mind. A videotape of him saying his own Requiem Mass was viewed after the fact by his deranged Long Island chapel congregation and accepted by them as valid liturgy.
ReplyDeleteThis crazy group of elderly fundamentalists went on to attend Sunday chapel "Masses" via other Traditionalist liturgy videotapes he left for posterity. The only other priest who allegedly said live Masses there was an 81-year-old Benedictine ex-hermit with a background no one will discuss. He soon disappeared.
Apparently, most of De Pauw's small congregation was reduced by attrition. There hasn't been a sign of human life on the Chapel's multimedia website for years. Prominent hierarchs falsely claimed as cult Directors are still listed there, all of them long-deceased.
Although Sunday video Masses are still shown at the L.I. Chapel, this liturgical theater of the absurd is just an audio-visual memorial to Fr. De Pauw's obvious insanity. Embarrassing to rational Catholics, but historically valuable because he's credited with founding the US Traditionalist movement.
That being said, I am not opposed to the Extraordinary Form liturgies authorized by Pope Benedict XVI. It's Traditionalists and other nutcase independents like De Pauw's group that I won't tolerate. Reportedly, he and all of his heretical followers were excommunicated.
Are you the campaign manager for Hillary Clinton?
DeleteYour comment is so rife with error and spin, it's the kind of communication you'd expect from a mudslinging political race.
1. "The late Fr. Gommar De Pauw was a sedevacantist heretic who apparently lost his mind."
Father never publicly professed sedevacantism, but I believe he was since at least 1999; I knew him quite well as he was my spiritual father. "Lost his mind"? Did you perform a psychological evaluation as a board certified psychiatrist? Sedevacantism is NOT heresy. It is permitted to doubt the validity of the pope for serious reason. Fr. denied NO dogma of the Faith. Your assertion is theological stupidity on steroids.
2. "A videotape of him saying his own Requiem Mass was viewed after the fact by his deranged Long Island chapel congregation and accepted by them as valid liturgy."
Not quite. Father had felt betrayed by those who did not stand up with him, or help him all those years in the aftermath of V2. He wanted his good and loyal friend, Fr. Joseph Tremonti (ordained for the Archdiocese of Chicago in 1945). He had a chapel like Fr. DePauw, and was a Traditionalist since 1969. He was 85 when Fr. DePauw died in 2005 and unable to travel. Fr. Tremonti offered a private requiem in his chapel, while we watched the video of Fr. DePauw and prayed for his soul. None of us thought it was a "valid Mass."
3. "This crazy group of elderly fundamentalists went on to attend Sunday chapel "Masses" via other Traditionalist liturgy videotapes he left for posterity."
When Father passed, I was the very old age of 40. There were people much younger, but I can't remember them all due to senility that comes with being 51. Father wanted the Board of Directors to find a priest who was ordained prior to V2 with no ties to the SSPX or other Traditionalist groups. I didn't think his decision was wise, but it's not "crazy." The videos were for "spiritual mass and communion" until such a priest was found.
4. "The only other priest who allegedly said live Masses there was an 81-year-old Benedictine ex-hermit with a background no one will discuss. He soon disappeared."
He "disappeared"! Really? Guess what? I FOUND HIM! On June 29, 2008, Fr. John Evangelista, OSB (ordained June 1962) became the new pastor at Ave Maria Chapel. He is there every Sunday, First Saturday, and Holy Day of Obligation, as well as Holy Triduum. I attended the Chapel just last month (July 2016) and there he was!! His mind is sharp as a tack, and he moves like a man 20 years his junior. He is NOT sedevacantist but "recognize and resist" the way Fr. DePauw began.
5. "Apparently, most of De Pauw's small congregation was reduced by attrition"
After 3 1/2 years without a priest, about 40 people remained each Sunday. As of July 2016, the congregation on Sundays is about 80. I'm not good at math but that's a 100% INCREASE in 8 yrs!
6. "There hasn't been a sign of human life on the Chapel's multimedia website for years. Prominent hierarchs falsely claimed as cult Directors are still listed there, all of them long-deceased."
A "hierarch" is a "chief priest, archbishop, or other leader", usu. clerical. I don't know of any such people at the Ave maria Chapel. Would you care to name them? The website is not updated; so what? This makes them a "cult" like Scientology? Yes, that makes sense. Richard Cuneo is the President of the Board, and very much alive. I saw him last month when I was at the "disappearing Benedictine's" Mass. (Continued below)
7. "Although Sunday video Masses are still shown at the L.I. Chapel, this liturgical theater of the absurd is just an audio-visual memorial to Fr. De Pauw's obvious insanity"
DeleteThere has been no video of Mass there since Fr. Evangelista took over--where do you get your "information"--supermarket tabloids? There's no "obvious insanity", but you suffer from a bad case of "manifest stupidity" and "rank calumny."
8. "Embarrassing to rational Catholics, but historically valuable because he's credited with founding the US Traditionalist movement."
The only thing that's embarrassing is your culpable ignorance, lack of vetting your sources, and complete unfamiliarity with Catholic theology while smearing a Canon lawyer who was so very far above you in knowledge and virtue.
9. "That being said, I am not opposed to the Extraordinary Form liturgies authorized by Pope Benedict XVI."
You mean the so-called "Latin Mass" most often "offered" by invalidly ordained "priests" in union with Bergoglio? The man who said, "There is no Catholic God," "Atheists can go to Heaven," and "Proselytism is nonsense." That "pope"? If you want heresy and outright apostasy look no further!
10. "It's Traditionalists and other nutcase independents like De Pauw's group that I won't tolerate. Reportedly, he and all of his heretical followers were excommunicated."
No, it's culpably ignorant, name-calling boors like yourself that should not be tolerated in polite society. Who "reported" that he was "excommunicated"? The Vatican II sect never did so, as they wanted to ignore him as much as possible while making his life miserable by spreading malicious lies just like you're doing. There is no valid hierarchy to "excommunicate" anyone. No one excommunicates the "gay mass" "priests" over at nearby St. Brigid. Welcome to Frankie's sect of "mercy and luv"!
The former NYC teacher in me would like to explain things to you at length. Unfortunately for you, I taught science, not special education.
---Introibo
Anonymous says, "I am not opposed to the Extraordinary Form liturgies authorized by Pope Benedict XVI." But don't you say in your "Papal Imposters" that all the "popes" after Pius XII are anti-popes, since Siri was validly elected? Then there's the big problem of the new episcopal ordination rite, doing away with the necessary words "fullness of the priesthood" and substituting "governing spirit," a term one could find in a Masonic handbook.
Delete