some traditionalists believe that cardinal siri was truly elected to the see of peter after the death of pius XII but after threats he denied the job. Some say that siri had chosen the name gregory XVII. how does one respond to these claims?
why would we respond? It is up to the accusor to prove that this is plauible, possible and historic.
Cardinal Siri denied this claim several times. This is just traditionalist wishful thinking.:rolleyes:
The cardinals in the conclave are sworn to secrecy, so there is no way anyone knows if this is true.
It’s just speculation/wishful thinking.
What we do know is that Angelo Cardinal Roncalli was elected pope and took the name John XXIII in 1958.
There was an article in the magazine Inside the Vatican some time in the last year or two titled “The Siri Thesis Unravels.” You might look it up.
The Sedevacantists have some very clever arguments, but Cardinal Siri is NOT the Pope in Red. This is the Pope in Red, in his camauro:
Have faith, my friend. The Sedes are wrong!
Know there are also different breeds of Sedes. If you want to be a Sede, you have to pick which Sede group you think is correct. Your very salvation would depend on picking the correct Sedevacantist group.
The Sedes disagree amongst themselves as to whom they believe is the first antipope. Some Sedes broke away at Vatican I. Some broke away with Pope John XXIII and the Siri controversy. Some broke away with Pope John Paul II and the condemned Bayside prophecies. Some broke away with Pope Benedict XVI based on unapproved private revelations spoken by false prophets such as Louise Tomkiel, the Two Patricks and Our Lady of Perpetual Light.
The cause of Sedevacantism is NOT Vatican II Council. The cause of Sedevacantism is misinterpretation of approved prophecy, or adherence to unapproved private revelation. To base your faith on revelations that are outside the Deposit of Faith is dangerous!
The truth is: the Holy Father is Pope Benedict XVI. He is the visible head of the Body of Christ. Anyone who says different is anathema!
Originally posted by BlestOne: Why would we respond?
We had better respond! To remain silent in the face of such horrific claims is to tolerate evil.
Confirmed Catholics are OBLIGATED to defend and explain the Catholic Faith. Me? I stand up to the Sedevacantists. I say: get in their face. Put them on the defensive. Make them explain to us WHY there are so many different Sedevacantist groups and WHY their group is the true Catholic Church. See, when you challenge them instead of remaining silent, they back off because their thesis is really, underneath their veil of piety, based on private revelation!
In fact, most who oppose Vatican II Council have never even read the Council documents. They oppose Vatican II Council because of misinterpreted, unapproved or condemned private revelation.
This is the real truth beneath it all.
Their faith is based on a foundation of sand, not rock. When you start challenging them on public forums such as this, they know they have no ground to stand upon.
And you are right in saying, BlestOne, that it is up to THEM to prove it. I just take a more aggressive approach than you do, simply because they are aggressive and brutal in thier attacks upon the Church.
A Catholic does not have to be a sedevacantist to acknowledge he was elected, the white smoke came out, he chose a name, and then it was changed. My aunt, who was in Rome at the time, said the 100,000 or so saw the white smoke and only about an hour later did it change. Historically you guys admit that politicial leaders picked popes early on but that it does not detract from your claims of truth. I would say this could be the same thing.
im not a sedevacantist, and i agree that one cannot base their faith on privite revelation and conspiracy theories but i have to admit that at first glance it would appear that some of the things said by popes john XXIII through benedict XVI may have contradicted the catholic faith, like certain speaches that could possibly hint at universal salvation or salvation for non catholics. I also have a hard time accepting the assisi prayer gatherings where false religions were allowed to take place in their worship in the vatican. I’ll admit that some things on websites like most holy family monastery are completely taken out of context and absurd but there are other things on these websites that could raise valid concerns and there might be something to them. A question that is always lingering in the back of my mind is, “Isn’t it fitting for satan to do exactly what the sedevancantists have claimed that he has done?”
I am sorry to say, but(and I am not being a sedevacantist, however you spell it) you are being unfair in calling the supporters of the Siri thesis sedevacantists. Sedevacantism is the thory that John XXIII to Roncalli, since they were elected holding diffirent doctrines(that is, heresies), they could not be legitimate Popes because a heretic, since he is excommunicated, cannot become a Pope.
Pope Paul IV, *Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559 Ex Cathedra: “We enact, determine, decree and define:that if ever at any time it shall appear that the… Roman Pontiff [Pope] prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: 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.”
The above was done by the Pope speaking as the Pope. And the Pope cannot err in faith and morals. Now sedevacantists hold that Roncalli-Ratzinger were lected, but are nt legitimate Popes. Hence, the chair of Peter is Vacant(sede-chair, vacante-vacant).
But the supporters of the Siri Thesis hold that Siri was elected, accepted the Papacy, but was forced by the freemasonic Cardinals(infiltrators) to let them put Roncalli on the Chair of Peter… or else, they will kill his family and persecute the entire Church if he accepts. **And let nobody say that I am supporting the Siri thesis or that I am a sedevacantist. ** I had a friend whose account was locked for supporting the Siri Thesis, yet, he said it was unfair because he was locked for ‘sedevacantism’. I really mean not to break the rules, excuse me but, I see this as a bit unfair. I ahve just said how the Siri thesis supporters are not sedevacantists.
We certainly are not sedevacantists. The term on Wikipedia is sedeimpeditism; meaning that he officially held the office, but was prevented from publicly exercising it by traitors and other evil people. This is a straw-man argument. While this particular situation is unique in the history of the Church it would behoove those who have an interest to study the history of the anti-popes (36 total including the latest six since 1958) and the history of the Arian heresy.
Saint Jerome in his history mentioned that the world “awoke with a groan to find itself Arian.”