Luigi Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 [quote name='bernard' timestamp='1313325435' post='2287590'] If you are bored why do you keep coming back to the thread and posting. [/quote] I've posted exactly twice to this thread. Not exactly "keep coming back to this thread and posting." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 [quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1313339093' post='2287621']... this would lead me to believe Siri wasn't the rightful Pope. [/quote] ... and he knew it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 It is entirely possible that Siri got the votes needed but did not accept for whatever reason. whether that was fear for his family or he just didn't want to be pope, we'll never know. however, this does not mean Siri was pope, to be pope you have to accept it. it's one thing to abdicate under durress, any such abdication would be invalid; but to refuse to ascend to the throne, even under durress, means you never became pope. John XXIII was coronated and everything, so was Paul VI. of course, the only thing required to become pope is to be elected AND to accept your election, coronation is not necessarily a requirement; but in any event, Siri may have been elected, but his actions make clear that if he was, he never accepted that election. so he was never pope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernard Posted August 14, 2011 Author Share Posted August 14, 2011 [quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1313339093' post='2287621'] but again... its been pointed out that it was a bad analogy. Considering that Pope Innocent took steps to gain the papacy that was rightfully his... and Cardinal Siri didn't... this would lead me to believe Siri wasn't the rightful Pope. [/quote] The reason I used this was to show the papacy can be usurped and an imposter can sit on the thrown of Peter without the gates of hell prevailing.. The situations Siri was facing and Innocent II was facing were completely different, it is disturbing that Siri didn't do more to stake his claim but there could be reasons for that. The evidence is there that he tried to stem the tide of modernism within the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernard Posted August 14, 2011 Author Share Posted August 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1313351294' post='2287721'] It is entirely possible that Siri got the votes needed but did not accept for whatever reason. whether that was fear for his family or he just didn't want to be pope, we'll never know. however, this does not mean Siri was pope, to be pope you have to accept it. it's one thing to abdicate under durress, any such abdication would be invalid; but to refuse to ascend to the throne, even under durress, means you never became pope. John XXIII was coronated and everything, so was Paul VI. of course, the only thing required to become pope is to be elected AND to accept your election, coronation is not necessarily a requirement; but in any event, Siri may have been elected, but his actions make clear that if he was, he never accepted that election. so he was never pope. [/quote] But the white smoke was released meaning he (or someone else) was elected and accepted the office two days before John XXIII. If he was forced to abdicate under duress the abdication is invalid. So whether he never lifted a finger to assert his claim to the throne or not it doesn't matter. Edited August 14, 2011 by bernard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG45 Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 [quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1313305864' post='2287551'] What bothers me about this topic is the duplicity of the title - an innocent question...any chance this could be true?... asked as if the poster has just read this new-to-him theory and is trying to think it through by asking for some outside perspectives.... When, in fact, the poster has studied this topic to a fine fare-thee-well, with obscure historical references, book titles & authors, videos, etc., all lined up in a defensive arsenal ready to be launched against those who disagree with him. [/quote] I can't prop this enough. The title does bely an innocent question, but then every point brought up, the OP goes, "but if you watch this section of the video at minute mark X" or "so and so supports this". That's more than "Hmm, I just heard this, is it true?" [quote name='bernard' timestamp='1313356016' post='2287744'] The reason I used this was to show the papacy can be usurped and an imposter can sit on the thrown of Peter without the gates of hell prevailing.. The situations Siri was facing and Innocent II was facing were completely different, it is disturbing that Siri didn't do more to stake his claim but there could be reasons for that. The evidence is there that he tried to stem the tide of modernism within the Church. [/quote] No offense, but that's not the way I've been interpreting your presentation of these two vastly different situations; that could be fault on my part though. Also, implying that Cardinal Siri would have been killed for taking the papacy if he was elected is a bit of a stretch (the "heart attack" comment). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernard Posted August 14, 2011 Author Share Posted August 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='BG45' timestamp='1313356970' post='2287752'] No offense, but that's not the way I've been interpreting your presentation of these two vastly different situations; that could be fault on my part though. Also, implying that Cardinal Siri would have been killed for taking the papacy if he was elected is a bit of a stretch (the "heart attack" comment). [/quote] Look at John Paul I. Perfect health, takes office, plans to clean house and has a "heart attack" 33 days in. If you've never heard about the book "In God's name" it details the events surrounding the death of John Paul I. It has sold 5 million copies. (yes I know that doesn't make it true) Just my opinion but I think Cardinal Siri would have suffered the same fate if he tried to act. Edited August 14, 2011 by bernard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faithcecelia Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 [quote name='bernard' timestamp='1313357734' post='2287762'] Just my opinion but I think Cardinal Siri would have suffered the same fate if he tried to act. [/quote] Wouldn't someone who truely believed he was chosen by God to lead the Church be willing to give his life for it? If he really was afraid for his life and so refused, then personally I cannot consider him to have been the true Pope. A good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG45 Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 [quote name='bernard' timestamp='1313357734' post='2287762'] Look at John Paul I. Perfect health, takes office, plans to clean house and has a "heart attack" 33 days in. If you've never heard about the book "In God's name" it details the events surrounding the death of John Paul I. It has sold 5 million copies. (yes I know that doesn't make it true) Just my opinion but I think Cardinal Siri would have suffered the same fate if he tried to act. [/quote] I was actually waiting on the John Paul I conspiracy theory. Glad you put in the caveat that selling five million copies doesn't make it true though, if it did, then The DaVinci Code would be true. Like FaithCecelia said, if he was chosen by God, then he would have acted as a successor of the Apostles and chosen the crown of martyrdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 [quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1313358020' post='2287766'] Wouldn't someone who truely believed he was chosen by God to lead the Church be willing to give his life for it? If he really was afraid for his life and so refused, then personally I cannot consider him to have been the true Pope. A good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep. [/quote] I've been saying this for pages now... Ignored by the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Why is this thread even still going? If it's a matter of just having something to talk about, I can start another thread arguing about how squares can only have three sides and refuse to submit to even the most basic of logic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernard Posted August 14, 2011 Author Share Posted August 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='homeschoolmom' timestamp='1313358903' post='2287776'] I've been saying this for pages now... Ignored. [/quote] Not ignored, I've addressed this several times. We do not know that martyrdom was the most beneficial course of action. We do not know the nature of the threats against him. It is quite possible that someone confessed the entire plot to him binding him under the seal of the confessional. When he was approached by Louis Hubert Remey in 1985 and asked whether he was elected pope he said "I am bound by the secret." He did collapse at the second vatican council when defending the primacy of Peter. Edited August 14, 2011 by bernard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 [quote name='bernard' timestamp='1313359446' post='2287780'] Not ignored, I've addressed this several times. We do not know that martyrdom was the most beneficial course of action. We do not know the nature of the threats against him. It is quite possible that someone confessed the entire plot to him binding him under the seal of the confessional. When he was approached by Louis Hubert Remey in 1985 and asked whether he was elected pope he said "I am bound by the secret." He did collapse at the second vatican council when defending the primacy of Peter. [/quote] So, you think that allowing the Church that he is supposed to be leading to fall into "heresy" is preferable to martyrdom? Wouldn't it be a wise thing to do IF this were true to DOCUMENT it to be opened after his death? In other words, even WITHOUT naming names, he could have recounted the details of his belief that he was the true pontif.... That alone wouldn't be proof, of course, but did he do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernard Posted August 14, 2011 Author Share Posted August 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='homeschoolmom' timestamp='1313360057' post='2287786'] So, you think that allowing the Church that he is supposed to be leading to fall into "heresy" is preferable to martyrdom? [/quote] No, I'm saying we don't know exactly what transpired and what his options were. [quote name='homeschoolmom' timestamp='1313360057' post='2287786'] Wouldn't it be a wise thing to do IF this were true to DOCUMENT it to be opened after his death? In other words, even WITHOUT naming names, he could have recounted the details of his belief that he was the true pontif.... That alone wouldn't be proof, of course, but did he do this? [/quote] Yes. Two 30 Days magazine reporters went to visit Cardinal Siri. [color=#000000][color=#000000]“Siri was asked a question he did not expect, about the truth of periodic allegations that Masonry had infiltrated the Church. The elderly Cardinal did not answer and, suggesting that he did not want to make any public declaration on the issue, he pointed to the tape recorder that was switched on. Then he made a gesture with his other hand that was very eloquent. What he meant was: [u]‘Of course, there was infiltration.’[/u] The tape recorder was turned off and Siri added: [b]‘This is a very serious matter, and I have first-hand sources. I have written my record of this and other events in the life of the Church, which will be published in 50 years’ time. [u]But for now[/u], I would prefer not to say anything more.’[/b][/color][/color] Edited August 14, 2011 by bernard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 (edited) OK, to be elected, you need a two-thirds majority of the voting electors of the College of Cardinals. If he were usurped under duress, that means that two-thirds of the cardinals were also put under duress. If that were truly the case and the election were truly invalid, would there not be more than a few cardinals stepping forward? Otherwise, that would be a very serious duress or blackmail that to-thirds of the cardinals were under. Edited August 14, 2011 by Norseman82 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts