Michael Fighting
"Michael…who standeth for…thy people," — Dan. 12:1-12
THE SIRI FILE
The Siri File: Why Guiseppe Siri Was Never Pope
Sede Impedita
Traditionalists promoting the Cardinal-Siri-as-pope theory have not been forthright in explaining and defining the term "sede impedita" and the material/formal position on which it is based. Rather than arguing from a mass of circumstantial evidence that does not foster certitude, they need to proceed from a legal and logical standpoint, as they are really obliged to do instead of presenting lesser, ambiguous arguments. The main source of the information used by the proponents of this theory to support their position represents a marked departure from Church teaching and practice regarding certainty and the value of evidence presented. Certainty cannot be obtained wherever the sources of evidence itself are questionable and secular sources of evidence scarcely can be ranked alongside those verified by the Church through the proper ecclesiastic channels. Since this issue is unresolved and it is key to clearing up the confusion surrounding the primacy, it is necessary to get to the bottom of these unsubstantiated allegations concerning sede impedita and sede vacante.
Rules of evidence
Canon 429
These Latin terms are used in Canon Law mainly to refer to an impediment to possessing episcopal sees and their vacancy, whether by death of the bishop, resignation, transfer or privation. Rev. Charles Augustine defined sede impedita in Canon 429 as a "quasi-vacancy," (A Commentary on Canon Law, 1918) leading into, in the minds of the material/formal crowd, a perpetually impeded see when applied to the See of Rome. This quasi-vacancy, however has its limitations and conditions. It occurs in cases of exile officially declared, captivity, and mental or physical inhabilitas or incapability. This, according to Woywod-Smith's commentary, can and does encompass a wide range of possibilities. Some of these include physical and mental debility (listed by Augustine), physical impossibility, inability to travel owing to war or natural disaster, etc. It is interesting that this canon treats only of an existing bishop unable to administer his diocese for whatever reason, NOT a see lacking a bishop. As both Canons 429 and 430 stress, the vacancy is to be filled within set time limits and the bishop is expected to actually occupy his see within four months, according to Augustine. Until this is possible, a vicar capitular is appointed to administer the diocese.
Canon 430
This Canon is enlightening because it goes into detail concerning the "privation" of the see owing to excommunication. This Augustine defines as the "canonical" death of a bishop. Although it is mentioned elsewhere in the Code, excommunication for heresy is not mentioned under this Canon specifically. But were it so mentioned it would be considered a "tacit resignation," incurred by the fact itself, or ipso facto, as Canon 188§4 states. Such resignation would be effective immediately and would require no acceptance, only evidence of the facts in the case.
This brings us to the matter of the actual declaration of the vacancy. Augustine states that such declaration, wherever excommunication is involved, requires "juridical certainty obtained by means described in law." These means are pre-emptory admonition, official summons, or a juridical document, (such as Cum ex Apostalatus Officio). Such a pre-emptory admonition was issued not once, but three times, first by Rev. Saenz and Abbe George de Nantes in the 1970s against Montini and later by Prof. Carlos Disandro in his publication of Cum ex and Bp. Ngo-dinh-Thuc's declaration in the 1980s against Wojtyla. It was not necessary, however, to issue an official summons, because the (manifest) heresy of the imposters had already robbed them of the See. When this heresy was better understood, it then was demonstrated in Will the Catholic Church Survive the 20th Century? This book outlined the necessity of certainty and presented juridical proofs that these anti-popes were guilty of heresy prior to their elections, making them incapable of assuming office. Once this proof was presented it became necessary to proceed to an election within the time period specified by ecclesiastical law in order that grave disorders concerning papal authority and function would not arise.
The Siri Hypothesis
It is difficult to see where Guérardists supporting Siri are headed with these Canons, since all they do is support the case for a speedy election and shore up the necessity for providing juridical proofs, as presented in Will the Catholic Church Survive... And even sede impedita does not treat of a quasi-vacant see in the sense they intend, but rather treats only of a validly elected bishop unable to administer his see. This applies to a pope already elected, but cannot apply to an illegal occupant who is impeding. In other words, the Guérardists pretend that an anti-pope can impede the see and prevent an election when this canon only deals with a see that is impeded preventing its physical occupation. The occupation of the See by an anti-pope has never prevented the election of a true pope in the past, even though popes such as Innocent II had to rule from outside Rome for several years.
Since Canon 430 specifically mentions excommunication, this canon also complies with other sections of the Code. The Code specifically states in Canon 160 that the papal documents of Pope Pius X and additions by Pope Pius XI and XII are to be the exclusive basis for papal election. For this reason the electors of Pope Michael in 1990 used these documents as the template for arriving at a method of election in the absence of cardinals, rather than relying solely upon those cited for an episcopal election. However, the devolution principle is mentioned in Canon 430 in reference to episcopal election but not in a papal election, although it also is a natural conclusion that can be drawn out from Canon Law itself. The confusion seems to arise in the distinction between an actual sede vacante and a sede impedita. No impediment exists when the tacit resignation occasioned by heresy arises, only a vacancy; this is clearly defined by Pope Paul IV in Cum ex. All the indications given by Augustine in his commentary support the swift and canonical election of an episcopal successor. In the case of sede impedita, a legitimate claimant to the see must be in place to occasion the impediment, or such an impediment cannot even exist.
If sede impedita applies to Wojtyla and now Ratzinger it is misapplied, since the See is actually vacant by way of apostasy, heresy and schism committed prior to election, as stated in Cum ex. If another claimant is indicated, the Guérardists are mum on this point, unless they believe Siri was actually elected pope, was "impeded" from occupying the See, and appointed a cardinal to reign secretly in his stead. Gary Giuffre, chronicler of the Siri theory, is one of the prominent supporters of sede impedita. Giuffre maintains that Siri appointed secret cardinals that are capable of electing a pope or have so elected. What he does not admit, and will not address is:
1.) When Siri participated in the election of the proven heretic, John 23, whose Vatican file Pope Pius XII labeled as “Suspected Modernist,” he disqualified himself from voting in any subsequent elections or presenting as papabile at said elections, as explained in the book Will the Catholic Church Survive…?. Furthermore, Cum ex states that that those who separate from the obedience of such heretics will not be penalized and may even call upon the secular authorities to unseat the usurper. So why did Siri not cite this document and proceed to inveigh upon any sympathetic civil authority? Why would a Cardinal not know of this document's existence, since it is the basis for some of the most important legislation in the code? And if the document was not known to exist in 1958, why did Siri not jump at the chance to use Cum ex once it was discovered in the early 1970s? Gary Giuffre’s bosom buddy, Dan Jones knew it existed in the late 1970s, so if this is the case, why wasn’t it brought to Siri’s attention then? Is it possible that, as Veritas stated in its Feb.-March 1977 “A Packet from Mexico” issue, Rev. Saenz already had spoken with Siri? “We did hear that Fr. Saenz went several times to Rome to talk with the older Cardinals familiar with Montini’s…background and who are in the sensitive position to legally assemble a conclave to depose the usurper Paul 6,” Veritas staff wrote on page eight of this issue. “But Fr. Saenz was not successful in his effort.” In a flyer issued by Catholics Forever to promote Rev. Saenz’ book The New Montinian Church , the editor also verified Saenz’ contact with these “older cardinals.” If Siri truly had been chosen in any of the elections that followed the death of Pope Pius XII, wouldn’t Rev. Saenz have relayed this somehow? Would it not have prevented him from writing Sede Vacante?
2.) The original date for Siri’s election, provided by Giuffre, was the 1963 conclave. (This date magically changed to 1958 in January, 1990. when Will the Catholic Church Survive…? proved John 23 was a heretic.) Abbe Henri Moreaux of France first suggested the 1963 date in an article published in the April, 1989 edition of SDCN, Moreaux’s original article having appeared in 1984. In his Keys of This Blood, Malachi Martin also gives Siri's election date as June of 1963. If 1963 is the correct date, Siri already had participated in the election of antipope Roncalli. The cardinals that participated in this election according to Cum ex could not have validly designated him. Ugo Groppi and Julius S. Lombardi provided an alternative explanation for the white smoke that issued in the 1958 conclave without the usual announcement a pope had been elected. These authors state that an individual phoned Osservatore Romano from the “the Loggia delle Dame above the entrance of the bronze portal leading into Vatican City…From this vantage point it would not have been impossible to hear, if the voices were loud enough, something being confidentially discussed behind the windows of the conclave enclosure. The news of Cardinal Ottaviani’s ‘election’ was sent out by the press agencies but then prudently stopped.” (Above All a Shepherd, 1959, pg. 173) This should have alerted Giuffre that there were other explanations for the election irregularities some reported that did not point to Siri.
Recently Giuffre has produced declassified U.S. government documents claiming to prove conclusively that Siri was elected in 1958. While public documents may be admitted into evidence as stated in Canon Law, (Can. 1813 #2) documents of this nature are admissible only in the proper forum, i.e., in ecclesiastical courts over which the Roman Pontiff ultimately presides. A general appeal to “Catholics,” who are not competent judges in such matters, or to the civil courts will not suffice. Moreover, as in any civil court, wherever there exists considerable lag time between the crime and the presentation of the evidence and/or testimony of the witnesses, the evidence loses its value. Nearly all if not indeed all the principals in Siri’s purported election and the subsequent issue of these civil documents are now deceased and any remaining evidence is merely secondhand or amounts to hearsay. Cases are thrown out of civil courts on a daily basis for such reasons. Can. 1814 states that civil documents are to be presumed genuine unless the contrary is proven by evident arguments, and this is one evident argument in point.
Another argument is the trustworthiness of the source of the information, (Giuffre, the U.S. government). As a schismatic, the supporter of a Church not in communion with the Roman Pontiff, Giuffre’s testimony would be useless in an ecclesiastical court. Even Hutton Gibson, who funded Giuffre’s book presenting the case for Siri’s election, could not vouch for Giuffre. The July, 2005 issue of Gibson’s The War is Now describes an unfinished book (14 years in progress) and clearly registers Gibson’s misgivings about the Siri “papacy,” and Giuffre’s recourse to questionable priests, even those ordained in the new rite, at St. Jude's Shrine. It hardly needs saying that the collusion of various U.S. government agencies with the NO church and especially with Giovanni Montini (Paul 6) — during and shortly after World War II and up to the present — place these declassified documents in serious doubt. Such documents never have been used as evidence in ecclesiastical trials and the use of these documents now would constitute an innovation. The Freedom of Information Act did not come into existence until after Vatican II. Therefore it seems highly improbable that the true Church would willingly accept as solid evidence documents proceeding from espionage and intrigue, especially when such documents can easily be the product of falsehood, forgery and elicitation by force or sheer chicanery. And it must be remembered that this information was obtained from those cardinals “bound by the secret,” in which case excommunication is involved.
3.) Regardless of whether Siri was elected or not, he violated his sworn oath to Pope Pius XII who made him a cardinal. The oath reads: "For the praise of Almighty God and the honor of the Apostolic See, receive the red hat…By this you are to understand that you must show yourself fearless, even to the shedding of blood, in making our holy Faith respected, in securing peace for the Christian people and in promoting the welfare of the Roman Church. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." Whether during or after the Conclave, Siri showed himself unworthy of the cardinalate he received. He also, then, would be a candidate considered unworthy for election to the papacy. In his 1939 work Canonical Elections, Rev. Anscar Parsons described as unworthy for election those whose lives are "sinful or scandalous." Violating a solemn oath dependent upon receiving a particular office is definitely scandalous, and is a mortal sin according to Rev. McHugh and Callan's two-volume work on moral theology. "There is no doubt that a mortal sin is committed when one…unjustly refuses to live up to a sworn engagement made under oath, for this is irreligion and injustice in a serious matter." This is true especially when it entails the welfare of the entire Church of Christ and the expulsion of a proven heretic.
Cardinal Siri's non accepto of the papacy may have been the result of force and/or fear, but he had sworn to divest himself of this fear and be injured or die rather than damage the reverence owed to Holy Faith and the welfare of the Church. Canon 1317 (1917 Code) states: "The person who has freely sworn to do something is bound by a special obligation of religion to accomplish what he has promised under oath…An oath, taken without violence and deceit, by which a person renounces some private good or favor given him by law itself, must be observed whenever it does not involve the ruin of the soul," and obviously holding to his oath would have been the only way to prevent the ruin of Siri's soul. Siri may well have denied his loyalty to the Church of Pope Pius XII and declared his allegiance to the anti-Church in violating his oath. Canon 1321 declares that "An oath must be strictly interpreted according to law and according to the intention of the person taking the oath — or, if the latter should act deceitfully, according to the intention of him to whom the oath was made."
There can be no doubt that Pope Pius XII wished to bind Siri absolutely by this oath. Neither, then is there any doubt that in violating his oath, Siri grossly insulted and denied the "praise of Almighty God and the honor of the Apostolic See." This being the case, it would seem that he may have committed the most grievous act of treason possible against his own Church, and thereby forfeited his status as a member of that Church. Siri was a Cardinal, and in Cum ex, Pope Paul IV holds Cardinals, bishops and priests to a far higher standard than the laity in matters of faith. He cannot be accorded diminished capacity, because in freely surrendering his right to be intimidated by force or fear in his oath to Pope Pius XII, he voluntarily removed this factor mitigating his guilt, (Can. 2199). Canon 2200 states that "Given the external violation of a law, the evil will is presumed in the internal forum."
4.) Siri was required by Canon Law to establish juridical documentation of his election prior to his death. Such documentation cannot of its nature be kept a secret. According to Giuffre Siri said he could not discuss the papal elections in question because “I am bound by the secret.” This comment was a veiled indication of the answer to all Giuffre’s research, but it was an answer he did not understand. This is an admission that he had participated in the elections only as a cardinal, unless we wish to believe that he lied. All the cardinals participating in the election are bound by the secret save the one elected. Siri was never elected.
The official notice mentioned above can be found in documents governing papal election during the opening of the conclave and the presentation of the Pope to the people of Rome. Woywod-Smith wrote: "The acceptance of the office and the choice of a name are then certified by document," although the pope-elect receives universal jurisdiction upon acceptance of his election. The Church must always establish the personal identity of the new Pontiff and his chosen name, as these constitute dogmatic facts. To date, no pope ever has reigned in secret, unknown to the majority of his subjects, and the history of the papacy is one of persecutions, invasions, captivity, imprisonment and martyrdom.
5.) According to his erstwhile promoters, Siri willingly accepted election and having accepted he was bound to fulfill all his obligations to feed the lambs and sheep of the fold and uphold the doctrines of the Church. At least this WOULD be true if Siri himself had not been guilty of schism and heresy for publicly remaining within the hierarchical structure of the Novus Ordo church, whether before or after his alleged election. If a Pope appears to promote heresy after his election, as Siri would have done in silently tolerating the proceedings known as Vatican II, this would only prove he became a heretic prior to his election. If he was not elected until 1963, he was excommunicated for the same reasons: he both tolerated Vatican II AND voted with those who attended the council. Cum ex is an infallible Bull and as such cannot be contradicted.
In his Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII teaches that unless there is a VISIBLE earthly head, the Church cannot exist. The law, of course is written for the usual circumstances, not the infrequent exception. For years many labored in common error, believing the Vatican II "popes" were legitimate, even if seriously flawed. But Revs. Saenz and Abbe de Nantes, Prof. Disandro and Bp. Thuc disturbed that certainty in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Even though Rev. Saenz would not live to see his research carried to its logical conclusions and Thuc’s declaration left much to be desired, these men raised legitimate doubts and those doubts had to be resolved. So judging by the existence of this common error, the See was not vacant all that long before further proofs of the antipopes' heresies were documented and an election was called in 1990. For the sake of argument only, let us say that Siri's secret successor has reigned since 1989. Yet the whole world has been deprived of his teaching, grave disorders in the Church have multiplied and only a privileged few have been aware of his existence. Is this really a picture of the Catholic Church Christ died for on the Cross? Had a sainted Pontiff laid down his life for the Church, does anyone really believe we would be where we are today? If the Passion of the Mystical Body is to be perfectly re-enacted, does it not require that the earthly shepherd also lay down his life for his sheep? According to Canon 1325, it was impossible for Siri to maintain his silence, whether as a pope-elect or a cardinal, when "the faithful are bound to profess their faith publicly, whenever silence, subterfuge or their manner of acting would otherwise entail an implicit denial of the faith, a contempt of religion, an insult to God or scandal to their neighbor," (Can. 1325). Certainly Siri's silence and manner of acting (appearing to accept the antipopes) scandalized the faithful and constituted an implicit denial of faith. If he was truly elected pope, even if only for a brief time, then the fact that he could demonstrate such heresy, according to Cum ex, means only that he never truly became pope, anymore than Roncalli or Montini. But this papal bull and its implications are never mentioned by the Guérardists.
Giuffre also ignores Canon 233, which states that any secret cardinals, whose names are not made public before the death of the Roman Pontiff according to the terms laid down in Canon Law, die with the Pontiff. This also would apply to Malachi Martin, whom Hutton Gibson alleges was named a cardinal “in pectore” by Pope Pius XII. The Church cannot proceed on probabilities concerning important matters such as the legitimate occupant of the Holy See, which is nothing less than a dogmatic fact, which enjoys indirect infallibility. Certainty in such matters must always be obtained and that certainty is regulated by Canon Law. Again, Canon 233 enforces the necessity of declaration and establishes a basis for investigating any departure from the norm. Moreover, the failure to publicly establish juridical certainty and proceed to an election or acclamation, even on some remote claim to validity, labors against the Guérardists and their claims. The Pope is, by necessity, a public person. It is necessary in order to safeguard the absolute fact of his existence that he be known to his subjects, for otherwise no certainty is had concerning his very existence, far less the manner, valid or not, of his appointment to the office.
Conclusion
As stated above, the material/formal crowd, by their obvious dedication to inaction, constituted the very impediment preventing a pope from occupying his See in Rome. This was the true purpose and intent of those working in concert to discredit the authority of Cum ex. Rev. Augustine qualifies the last condition for a sede impedita — inhabilitas, or inability for, whatever reason, to take possession of the see — as follows. This particular impediment must exist “without anyone's fault or cooperation.” (A Commentary on Canon Law, 1918) That it in fact exists solely on account of the deliberate collusion and scandalous cooperation of those wishing to justify their operation without the proper jurisdiction is obvious. These shameful cooperators must look to the penal section of the code that deals with such infractions to discover their true juridic status.
Secrecy and exclusivity have no place in the pursuit of unity and the election or confirmation of a Roman Pontiff. Giuffre and the Guérardists appeal to canons that cannot and do not support their claims. That they appeal to Canon Law at all is quite astonishing, considering that they blithely ignore the fact that they transgress other Canons. For in operating chapels that invite in floating "priests," they violate those Canons based on Divine law stating such priests must possess jurisdiction obtained through ordinary channels in order to minister to the faithful and validly absolve from sin. Only that jurisdiction flowing from the Supreme Pontiff to the bishops in communion with him, then supplied to priests by their ordinaries satisfies doctrinal norms for validity and liciety.
The following quote from Amleto Cardinal Cicognani (Canon Law, 1935) explains the Gerardists' true position, their insistence on any election being held in Rome and the pope being the bishop of Rome: "Many Gallicans, also the Pistoans, and in our day, the Anglicans who call themselves 'Catholics' [contend] that the pope's power is merely the power of supervision or direction and not the true power of ordinary jurisdiction; hence they cede him episcopal jurisdiction only over the diocese of Rome and regard him as a Metropolitan or Patriarch with respect to the whole Church."
Pope Pius IX condemned the following error: “There is nothing to forbid that by the vote of a General Council or by the action of all peoples the Supreme Pontificate be transferred from the Roman Bishop and THE CITY (i.e. of Rome) to another bishopric and another city.” (Syllabus of Errors , Pope Pius IX, Dec. 8, 1864 (DZ 1735)) This condemnation does not consider the situation of a pope forced to live outside of Rome yet still claiming to be its Bishop. The Bishop of Rome is the Pope and the Pope is Bishop of Rome, even if he is not living there. In fact we have seen the case of Pope Innocent II who was away from Rome, as opposed to Antipope Anacletus II, who occupied the See in Rome. And for a long period of time, called the Babylonian Captivity, the Bishop of Rome lived at Avignon in France, but remained both Bishop of Rome and Pope. Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologicae, Bk. III, Q.35 A7 Ad 3) is of the opinion that it was the will of God that the papacy be established with the Roman Episcopacy, since the center of the secular world at that time was in Rome. However, he also is of the opinion that it was not suitable for our Lord Jesus Christ to suffer and die in Rome, but that His Church be established there to supplant paganism.
1. Hence the saying ‘Where the Pope is, there is Rome.’ It matters not where the Pope is located, or whether he lives in Rome, or has ever seen Rome, his title to the Papacy is his Bishopric of Rome. He may be exiled to Avignon or St. Petersburg, to London or New York, but he remains always Bishop of Rome, and apart from that episcopate he would not be Pontiff. It is not because he is Pope that he is Bishop of Rome, but it is because he is Bishop of Rome that he is Supreme Pontiff and Vicar of Jesus Christ. The function of the electors, whoever they may be — the Cardinals, as at present, or others, as in times past — is to designate the person who is to occupy the vacant See of Rome. The mode of designation has not been determined by God by any divine law, and so it remains free to be determined by ecclesiastical law. But given lawful election, that is to say, election in accordance with laws laid down by preceding Pontiffs, the Bishop-Elect of Rome is by divine law Vicar of Christ, from Whom immediately he derives the primacy. Hence the Roman Curia is not tied to the material city of Rome. As in attendance on the Pope, and at the immediate service of the Pope, it remains, wherever it may be, the Roman Curia. (Urbs et Orbis, William Humphrey S.J., 1899)
2. The authority of a bishop does not depend on his residence in his see. Those Pontiffs who resided at Avignon were truly bishops of Rome, having been elected under this title by the College of Cardinals to fill the place of Peter. They governed that see by means of a Cardinal Vicar, whilst they personally applied themselves to the government of the universal Church, (The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated, Abp. Francis Patrick Kenrick, 1859) At the time of Pope Innocent II, it is doubtful there was even a Cardinal Vicar, an antipope having taken physical possession of Rome.
3. Ubi papa, ibi Rome — the Pope, wherever he may be, is and remains bishop of Rome...The city of Rome may be totally destroyed; for Rome as a city, may perhaps perish, but Rome as a See is imperishable. (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, Rev. S.B. Smith, 1877)
4. Ecclesiastical law sets the mode of election, but if the one elected is papabile (i.e. capable of being elected Pope), it does not matter if the balance of the law has been violated. Saint Alphonsus states: It doesn’t matter that in past centuries some pontiff has been elected by fraud: it suffices that he has been accepted after as Pope by all the Church; for this fact he has become true pontiff. We have seen questionable elections, which are accepted by history and subsequent Roman Pontiffs as unquestionably valid. This, however, cannot be misconstrued to excuse schism, heresy or apostasy.
5. Towards the end of World War II, when it appeared that Rome might be bombed into non-existence, Pope Pius XII summoned all the cardinals then in Rome to the Vatican on Feb. 9, 1944. He announced to the cardinals assembled in the Sistine Chapel that he would remain in Rome regardless of what happened — the Captain would remain with St. Peter's Barque — but told them: “’We release you from any obligation to follow our fate. Each one of you is free to do what you think best.’ He then instructed them that, if anything happened to him, if he were imprisoned or killed, they must gather together wherever they could and elect a new Pope. (Crown of Glory: The Life of Pope Pius XII, Alden Hatch and Shamus Walshe, 1957, pg. 174) At that point in time it seemed quite possible that Rome might become uninhabitable for an undetermined length of time, and the war might go on indefinitely.
But there is another factor involved in being the Roman Pontiff. The Roman Pontiff means just that: Bishop of the diocese of Rome to which is attached the Supreme Pontificate of the papacy, apparently by Divine constitution through the Apostle, Saint Peter. Now as Bishop of Rome, the Pope has ordinary jurisdiction as Local Ordinary over the diocese of Rome, which contains six hills. The seventh hill, one of the suburbicarian dioceses, was not included under papal jurisdiction until the 1960s. On April 11, 1962 the false pope Angelo Roncalli (John 23), issued a Motu Proprio that transferred the ordinary jurisdiction over the suburbicarian sees from the Cardinal Bishops to himself. Thus did he truly play the role of false prophet by taking ordinary authority over all seven hills of Rome, paving the way for Antichrist Montini (Paul 6). The inevitable result was the advent of that great harlot, the Novus Ordo church, sprawled in serpentine fashion across the seven hills.
As proven elsewhere, it is clear that heresy must be manifest according to Cum ex to exclude a cardinal form voting in a papal election or being elected. Siri's heresies were manifest long before the 1963 election. And as others have adequately demonstrated, the evidence provided for Siri's election in 1958 was not only erroneous, but on further investigation could not be verified.
The Siri theory revisited
It is fitting that Our Lady appeared at La Salette September 19 only four days following the feast of her Sorrows on September 15. La Salette received the approval of the Church five years following Our Lady’s appearance there, and some believe that the secret she gave to Melanie was implicitly acknowledged per that approval. We must not, however, automatically assume that all apparitions, heavenly messages and mystical musings, especially among those who are not saints are to be placed on a par with the Church-approved apparitions of Our Lady. All that can be said of such prophecies is that they are adjudged not objectionable, or contrary to faith or morals, and that is a much different matter than approval. As demonstrated in La Salette and the Papacy, the true test of all prophecy is whether or not it comes to pass.
Also, private prophecy is not and never has been considered the basis for scholastic inquiry and investigation. At best it can be used as incidental confirmation in matters of Divine revelation, infallible Church teaching, Church discipline and scholastic proofs advanced in support of all these. Theological arguments for or against any specific event not grounded in scholasticism, but on some other method of inquiry, are not to be held as existing on the same plane as scholastic argument. Scholasticism uses the deductive method, which will not allow any truth of faith to suffer disservice at the hands of modern science or secular debate. The Church has rejected all other philosophical methods as unworthy of presenting truths of faith.
And here once again we must address the particulars of the arguments set forth for the Siri-as-Pope theory. Already we have proven in Deceiving the Elect that Siri never truly became Pope unless his election was certified by document and his chosen papal name recorded and announced, as required by Pope Pius XII in his 1945 Constitution on papal elections, Vacantis Apostolica Sedis. Then in La Salette and the Papacy, we observed that Siri had taken the oath as cardinal to fearlessly protect and preserve the papacy and the Catholic faith, even to the shedding of his own blood, and by this oath had voluntarily foresworn that fear mentioned in Can. 2205. Although this law would nullify any action placed under fear and duress, it also states that it does not entirely diminish liability whenever it involves contempt of the faith or detriment to souls. Furthermore, Can. 2207 states that an offense is made worse by the greater dignity of the person who commits it. La Salette and the Papacy also upbraids Siri supporters for shamelessly using the secret of La Salette to support their scenario of the Pope-in-exile.
Because other Catholic prophecies appear both in Gary Giuffre’s work on Siri and the works of his supporters, these must now be addressed. From the beginning, Giuffre has used “the Pope dressed in red” quote taken from Anna Catherine Emmerich’s work as though this itself proved his case. But as was pointed out by the La Salette seer Melanie herself, these visions and messages must be interpreted first in a spiritual sense and only secondly in the literal sense. Everyone knows that cardinals wear red, symbolizing the oath taken to shed their blood, if need be, for the Pope and the Church. Everyone also knows only cardinals were allowed to elect the Pope and were ordinarily elected to the papacy. Emmerich’s description of the Pope in red is no proof that Siri was truly Pope, especially in the absence of those things required by the Church to provide certitude concerning his election. On the other hand, this Pope in red could just as easily be Pope Michael, since in Vol. II of Emmerich’s visions, it is St. Michael on top of the Church who Emmerich describes as “wearing a blood-red robe.” Nearly every color depiction of St. Michael in existence shows the archangel garbed in red. This simply demonstrates that such private prophecy describing future events is elastic and can be used indiscriminately, as has been proven time and again with the prophecies of Michele Nostradamus.
Then there is the reference to Bd. Anna Maria Taigi’s prediction that Sts. Peter and Paul will journey to earth to choose the cardinal who will become Pope following the chastisement; yet this remains to be seen. Again, we have seen in La Salette and the Papacy that seers can be mistaken in the details of their visions, can allow the opinions and beliefs of others to influence what they actually see and often are the victims of misreporting and mistranslation of those visions. What Bd. Taigi reported amounts to a miracle, and of course miracles are always a possibility in any age. But as explained in Will the Catholic Church Survive the 20th Century?, miracles are not to be expected when a more natural resolution of a problem can be employed. This is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. Many embrace the Siri theory precisely because it relieves them of all effort to resolve the sede vacante on their own, allowing them instead to avoid being ostracized and ridiculed by their fellows and the world at large. No effort is required here; no study, no blind faith, only the acceptance of a theory. Even the theory’s original funder, Hutton Gibson, admits Giuffre has not proven his case.
Many also believe that the choice of Gregory XVII is symbolic of prophecy fulfilled. This because the Monk of Padua predicted that Pope Pius XII would choose this name. Then Rev. Culleton, in his work The Prophets and Our Times, commented, after Pacelli chose the name Pius XII, “next pope?” Another Gregory XVII also comes to mind — the figment of one author’s imagination in a 1982 work entitled Clowns of God. In this book, Morris West casts his Pope as a man who begins forecasting the end of the world shortly after his election and is run out of office; exiled. There also is some connection between Gregory XVII and Garabandal, a 1961 apparition liberally sprinkled with mystic phenomena that was never approved by the Church. In the early 1980s Giuffre was in contact with one of the seers, Conchita (Gonzalez), who at that time lived in New York. It should be remembered that Paul 6 as a prisoner in the Vatican, a tale that can be traced to a “vision” issuing from the discredited Bayside, NY “seer” Veronica Lueken, fueled the ambitions of Clemente Dominguez Gomez, that other Gregory XVII.
There is no proof admissible in the eyes of the Church that Siri chose the name Gregory XVII. Rather it would seem the name was chosen for him. As Giuffre himself pointed out, the name Gregory means “watchman.” But Siri was no watchman, nor was he Pope. At the beginning of the false Vatican II council, Siri and 18 others addressed a letter to John 23 “expressing their ‘disquietude over false doctrines’ being aired at the council,” (Vatican Council II, Xavier Rynne, pg. 125). Eventually five bishops withdrew their signatures from the letter and Siri was among the 14 who remained. Nothing, however — no standing protest, no withdrawal from participation in the council, no public outcry by this group — ever marked Siri and his conservative faction as truly orthodox and willing to defend the Faith at all costs. In fact, at the council’s conclusion, despite Siri’s known old-school stance, Siri and his friend, fellow conservative Ruffini sat quietly and submissively at the right hand of Paul 6 as the anti-pope spoke to the Italian bishops during a semi-private audience. “His talk…dealt principally with the attitude [the bishops] would be expected to adopt after the council was over…It was obvious from the Pope’s tone that he expected compliance also from [Siri and Ruffini]…” (Rynne, pg. 571). Another Italian bishop (Carli), an aide to Card. Ottaviani, had threatened mutiny at one of the closing sessions, but was silenced by the soothing words accredited to Siri in an earlier conference a week prior to the bishops meeting. Siri reportedly told a priest at this conference that the council decisions “are not definitions; they will never bind us.” According to Rynne, even after the council closed Carli remained distressed, threatening to light himself on fire Buddhist-style in protest to all that the council destroyed.
But Siri remained silent. By all accounts he had at his beck and call a potent coterie of “wealthy industrialists and…powerful right-wing elements,” which he mysteriously failed to mobilize in defense of his supposed papacy and to publicly condemn the false VII doctrines he protested, (Rynne, pg. 571). Later, Paul 6 would explode his assumption that the faithful would not be bound by Vatican II decrees. In a general audience Jan.12, 1966 Montini announced that the Council’s teachings always enjoy at least “the authority of the supreme ordinary Magisterium. This ordinary Magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents.” Siri had to be aware that a group of bishops had rejected Paul 6’s interdenominational prayer service with all council attendees at the end of the council as heresy and communicatio in sacris. He was most likely aware of the comment made during the council by Msgr. Antonio Piolanti, Rector Magnificus at the Lateran University, that “there are rationalist theologians going about Rome seducing innocent foreign bishops,” or the comment Piolanti made to one of his classes: “Remember, the pope can be deposed if he falls into heresy,” but Rynne dismisses this remark as a joke. Time magazine’s “Man of the Year” article for Jan. 4, 1963 reported both these comments, so they were widely read. Siri had support; he had allies to rely upon both before and after the council. Siri knew, but he failed to deliver; and so did his constituents.
And finally there is the matter of Pope Pius XII’s failure to name a Cardinal Camerlengo, the head cardinal who, after the death of the pope organizes and calls the next papal election. Siri supporters have seized upon this fact as an indication that Pius XII, whose last appointed cardinal just happened to be Siri was signaling the world that Siri was his choice as a successor. But this does not follow. The best indication of who will succeed the Pope is whoever reigns as Vatican (Pro-) Secretary of State. Rampolla was Leo XIII’s secretary, and was very nearly elected. Pacelli served in this position under Pope Pius XI. Montini was Pope Pius XII’s secretary until his dismissal in 1953, and there have been other instances of this throughout history. None of the biographies written on Pope Pius XII name Siri as his successor-in-grooming, or for that matter mention Siri at all. Paul Murphy, who wrote the biography of Pope Pius XII’s dear friend and assistant, Sr. Pascalina, relates that the nun discussed potential successors of Pius with Cardinal Spellman the day of Pius’ death. Siri was never mentioned as a possible successor, nor Ottaviani, although Ruffini, Siri’s friend, was mentioned as a possibility. Sr. Pascalina had no use for Ruffini, who was known to be the intimate friend of Don Calgaro Vizzini, head of the Sicilian Mafia and one of the most powerful men in Italy, (Murphy, pg. 233). Siri’s name is nowhere to be found in the book. Sr. Pascalina did not feel that anyone could replace Pacelli. Murphy himself noted that certainly no successor could “be trusted to carry on the strictly doctrinaire ecclesiastical policies of Pius XII,” (pg. 283).
A generation raised on fairy tales with happy-ever-after endings would understandably hope that despite all indications to the contrary, the knight in shining armor soon will arrive to rescue them from the dungeon and restore the kingdom. Siri’s “successor” is either waiting in the wings, prepared to appear on cue, or Siri theorists will revert to Bd. Anna Maria Taigi’s revelation that Sts. Peter and Paul will appoint the true Pope following the three days darkness, (see The Papacy and La Salette). It is even possible that Bp. Pintonello, who some maintain participated in the election of Victor von Pentz, (Linus II) will be identified as the man appointed “pope” by Siri before his death. Siri supporters will sweetly explain that Pintinello resigned as “pope” in favor of Linus’ 1994 election and then consecrated Linus bishop following his election. The clue to the solution of this puzzle lies in Hutton Gibson’s comment concerning Giuffre’s refusal to consult Countess Elizabeth Gerstner concerning the likelihood of Siri’s election in 1958. Gerstner worked in the Vatican prior to Pope Pius XII’s death, founded the Una Voce movement in Europe and later orchestrated Linus’ election. Apparently Gibson believes Gerstner has the answers and she should, considering that the 1994 election was based on the doctrinal proofs and methods outlined in Will the Catholic Church Survive the 20th Century?
That a true Pope, bound to guard the flock against the very wolves that consumed it, could somehow consider his own life more precious than his lambs is not only preposterous — it is contrary to Divine revelation. Was it not Christ Himself who told us “The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep,” later fulfilling this prophecy with His Passion and death? And so, pray tell, whence cometh the cowardly shepherd Siri and his hireling Giuffre?
Tello, the coming Council and ‘Divine Right’
Some Traditionalists maintain that Guérard des Lauriers did not teach that John Paul 2 was pope materially and formally. Instead, they claim, des Lauriers taught he was materially pope from an objective standpoint only because none had removed him from office. As explained by Massimo Introvigne, “Only if a significant number of cardinals and Bishops were prepared to start a canonical process against the Pope would he cease to be the ‘real’ Pope also ‘materially’ (and not only formally). Guérard criticized Lefebvre, (who regarded Paul VI as both Pope materially and formally,” and Sedevacantists who did not recognize the material aspect of Wojtyla’s papacy. (See http://www.cesnur.org/2004/mi_pope.htm)
Even if des Lauriers did not hold the ‘formal’ aspect of this theory, it still doesn’t float. Catholics with theological training such as des Lauriers cannot formulate “theories,” especially when they collide with Canon Law and infallible decrees. All the time and energy des Lauriers devoted to his thesis would have been better spent applying Cum ex to the current situation and educating the faithful. Like the Siri thesis, material/formal required constant defense and regular maintenance. It strained the belief of faithful Catholics and drained the energies of those trying to make sense of the crisis in the Church. It kept Catholics permanently in the problem and away from the solution, for reasons already stated. Des Laurier’s bottom line was no different than the line drawn by other Traditionalists, whether they believed JP2 a true pope or no: the answer can come only from (any remaining) cardinals and bishops, the hierarchy cannot attain a consensus on how to proceed, ergo, we are stuck indefinitely without a true Pope. This argument is based on the following presumptions: a) bishops exist to arrive at this consensus and are, by divine right, as successors of the Apostles Christ selected, the only ones able to resolve the crisis in the Church and, b) without them nothing can be done. Des Lauriers is not the only one who advanced this conclusion.
Tomas Tello, who claims consecration through Bp. Thuc, (but whose name appears on none of his lineages) uses the divine right defense to debunk the validity of a papal election held by the laity. For many Traditional-style clerics, it seems that the minute they manage to acquire a mitre from whatever source, they immediately begin formulating theories intended to correspond with their exalted state. Tello is a bishop, hence he is immediately a member of the hierarchical elite. He can lord it over the laity as he pleases and bend them to his will, despite any teachings of the Church to the contrary. But in his doctrinally inaccurate condemnation of “lay interference” in papal election efforts, Tello tells us more about his true moral-ethical and theological orientation than he realizes.
In his A Papal Election Under the Present Circumstances — Basic Guidelines Tello borrows liberally from the present author’s works without giving credits, certainly not something a true Catholic would do. As these works explained, clerics are the ordinary electors in papal elections, Church teaching and practice allows exceptions to the laws governing elections in extraordinary circumstances. Not satisfied with this, Tello strips the doctrinal foundation from the arguments presented in Will the Catholic Church Survive…? and substitutes his own foundation of divine right, an heretical belief that can be traced back to the Gallicanist heresy. It was this right that emboldened the cardinals of the Western Schism to believe that they were above the Pope and could depose him. It is the spirit that inflamed the Protestant reformers, King and monk alike, and resulted in the heresies that fueled the Protestant Revolt. Pope Paul IV cut to the chase when he delivered the crushing blow to all who would believe that those professing heresy could presume to hold any position whatsoever in the Church. And Pope St. Pius V reaffirmed all the censures laid down in Cum ex in his Intermultiplices. Why is the divine right defense heretical? Because it places the college of bishops above the authority of the Pope, championing the power of orders over that of jurisdiction, held only in its fullness by the Roman Pontiff. This is simply a return the variety of Gallicanism that existed during the Western Schism.
Marcel Lefebvre endorsed this heresy sometime in 1978. According to an AP wire service article, (dateline Paris, Feb. 6, 1978) Lefebvre stated: “A pope can make a mistake, and his infallibility carries only over certain rare and precise points.” The Society has never recanted this statement by Lefebvre minimizing papal authority. Because they accept the Vatican II usurpers as true popes they must stretch infallibility to the breaking point to allow for all heresy existing in the documents of what normally would be the ordinary magisterium. In an article posted to its website in 2004, (Clear Ideas on the Pope’s Infallible Magisterium) SSPX “theologians” admitted the “faux pas” of modern “popes,” stating that whatever issues from encyclicals, allocutions, radio messages, etc… need not be considered binding. This is because, they teach, true definitions “are relatively rare.” Hutton Gibson himself professed this belief in his Paul VI’s Legacy: Catholicism, stating that “The last time a Pope spoke infallibly was in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the ancient doctrine of the Assumption,” (pg. 12). Isn’t this precisely the reason John 23 presented religious liberty as Catholic dogma, opening the doors to all manner of belief on the part of Catholics and shamelessly politicizing of the Church? This is the “collegiality” Benedict 16 is preparing to expand upon; the principle that allowed the College of Cardinals to grow from 70 in Pope Pius XII’s day to nearly double that size today, aping the modern democratic process and reducing the pope to a figurehead held captive by the mob.
But the Church is scarcely a democracy. Tello tries to intimate that the laity, in taking upon themselves the right to elect are agitators for democracy and lay involvement in the Church. Nothing could be further from the truth. Tello’s divine right theory is condemned by Pope St. Pius X in his condemnation of the Sillon (Our Apostolic Mandate, Aug. 15, 1910) and by Pius XII in two different encyclicals (See Section IV of Deceiving the Elect, free downloads) and is contradicted by the common opinion of all theologians writing in the 19th century. (See Appendix III at the end of Deceiving the Elect) And contrary to Tello’s dismissal of the laity’s role in the Church, the Church began at the Vatican Council to call the laity to a greater share in the work of the hierarchy (Catholic Action), but this role was deliberately minimized by the clergy and diverted into channels actively seeking liturgical renewal. However, this certainly doesn’t prevent the laity from engaging in the right sort of activity on behalf of the Church, something all the Popes up to Pius XII emphasized repeatedly. The canonical principles invoked as the basis for lay participation in a papal election are the same listed by Tello in his work. But despite the advice of eminent canonists writing prior to Pius XII’s death, Tello appeals his entire case to the one canon (Can. 20) (Will the Catholic Church Survive…?, Pt. III, Sec. IIC, pgs. 333-337) these canonists advise be used only if one cannot appeal to Canons 18 and 19. While these deviations are enough to discredit his thesis entirely, it is important to pull it up by its erroneous roots and examine the true source of this divine right theory so popular today.
Its true roots lie in Gnosticism, Eastern mysticism, Protestantism, British Israelism and the pretensions of the Priory of Sion. Kings in the Middle Ages first used the term to gain pre-eminece in the struggles between the spiritual and temporal spheres. The Anglicans later employed it during the Reformation to justify their separation from Rome and shore up the authority of the Crown in religious affairs. The underground streams that fed the Reformation provided background for the revival of divine right, complete with a seemingly credible pedigree for its proponents. Those advancing this theory contend that Great Britain was evangelized by St. Paul independent of all papal authority, received her bishops from him, established churches and generally constituted a church outside the Church before St. Peter ever sent apostles from Rome to the British Isles. This teaching has been refuted time and again by the Church and condemned as a falsification of dogmatic facts. It’s final condemnation came at the Vatican Council. It was shortly after this council closed that the divine right heresy, and Gallicanism, resurfaced.
Apologists for divine right teach that “The foundations of the British church were Apostolical, within a few years with those of the Pentecostal Church in Jerusalem — preceding those of the primitive Church of Rome by seven years — and preceding the first arrival of the papal Church of Rome in Britain, under Augustine, by 456 years. The British church has, from it origin, been a royal one…The spiritual or ecclesiastical head of the British church was always a Briton, residing in Britain, amenable to British laws only and having no superiors in the Church but Christ.” (St. Paul in Britain by R.W. Morgan, 1860. The statement in bold type is condemned in DZ 468.) In his defense of British Israel tenets, Frederic Haberman reiterates this same ideology. “In 36 A.D., after the Jews had finally rejected the preaching of the Gospel and had stoned St. Stephen to death, Paul was converted and commissioned to carry the Gospel to Israel and the gentiles. The kingdom was taken from the Jews in the very same year and established in Britain, when Joseph of Arimathea founded the first Christian church at Glastonbury, England.” (Tracing Our Ancestors, by Frederic Haberman) E. Raymond Capt, best known for his works on the Great Pyramid, reiterates the same beliefs in his The Traditions of Glastonbury.
In his Catholic Encyclopedia article on Gallicanism, Rev. Degert described the ancient liberties of the Gallicans as corresponding very closely with the divine right theory, also called the continuity theory in Great Britain. He observed that M. Haller “has concluded that these so-called ‘ancient liberties’ claimed by the Gallicanists were of English origin, that the Gallican church really borrowed them from its neighbor, only imagining them to be a revival of its own past.” (See http://www.newadvent.org/) Author Peter Anson summed up the Gallicanists’ opinions “as the belief that from as early as the fourth century, the majority of French bishops and clergy had held the true doctrine of papal authority, and that from time to time they had set a splendid example to the rest of the Catholic Church by their defense against the insidious encroachments of Rome." (Bishops at Large, 1964) This differs little from the time frame and anti-papalism of the British.
Others style this theory the “branch theory,” referring to the misappropriation of Christ’s parable about the vine and the branches. Certain members of the High Church Party of the Church of England hold that this parable means there are many “branches” in the Church, ignoring the fact that the vine and its offshoots constitute one plant; one true Church. These Anglicans teach that the Roman, Anglican and Eastern churches are entirely independent, yet bound together as branches of the one Church. “This theory supposes, contrary to facts, that there is one great Eastern Church, united in the same primitive faith, that ever agreed in denying the Papal claims. This is a mere figment of the imagination. No such body ever existed. The East has been from the beginning, and it is today, full of heresies and schisms.” Rev. Bertrand Conway, C.S.P. taught. (The Question Box, 1929) “When you ask an Anglican, ‘How do you prove that your church is a true branch of the Catholic Church,’ he will answer that two things are required: Valid orders and the Creeds. But we ask, why valid orders rather than the papacy or the Mass?” And this is precisely the point. Schismatics and heretics always reject papal authority and/or the liturgy. They idolize orders and despise jurisdiction, believing that if they can in some way obtain orders they can dispense with the necessity of papal jurisdiction. This heresy obviously infected both English and French alike, but the English seem to cling to it more tenaciously, and it is important to understand why. Abp. Francis Patrick Kenrick provides the true history of Britain’s evangelization and explains the existence of bishops predating St. Augustine.
Kenrick noted that the bishops of London, York and Lincoln rendered “ a splendid testimony to the primacy at the Council of Arles in 314,” also at Sardica and Rimini.
St. Prosper, a native of Gaul and contemporary with St. Germanus wrote: ‘At the instance of the deacon Palladius, Pope Celestine sends Germanus, Bp. Of Auxerre, IN HIS OWN STEAD, in order that he might drive out the heretics and guide the Britons to the Catholic faith.” (The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated, 1859) This was sometime between 422 and 432, the length of St. Celestine’s reign. Kenrick continues: “There are those who assert the original independence of the British churches and their autocephalous character forget their Roman origin and the councils in which the prerogatives of the Holy See were very distinctly recognized…We need not discuss more fully the question of the independence of the British churches, since the church of the Anglo-Saxons was a purely papal creation, having been founded organized, and fostered by the Popes. Augustine, the envoy of Gregory, acted in all things by his direction and with entire dependence on him,,,St. Augustine’s Apostolic Mandate issued by Pope Gregory read: ‘You have subject to you not only the bishops you or the Bishop of York ordain but all the bishops of Britain, that they may learn from your instruction to believe correctly’…The establishment of this new hierarchy throughout the island generally suspended that of the British prelates.” Kenrick acknowledged that many British bishops had missionary faculties pre-existing before Augustine’s arrival; also some had fallen prey to “the artifices of the Arians.” Druidic influence, also, was long in dying out.
Protestants advancing the autocephalous church theory claim these bishops performed ordinations outside the usual channels, but Kenrick denied this. “That the Britons exercised a free power of ordination without recourse to Rome is not established…Were it conceded, …it would only show that the freedom of the Britons on this point should have been respected, unless most weighty reasons required a change of system.” Pope Gregory’s mandate to St. Augustine seems to indicate that such reasons did indeed exist. It appears that the early missionaries endowed with the usual privileges became too comfortable with their independence and presumed authority they did not have. It also sounds as though some, at least, deviated from the faith. For above a century, nevertheless, the ancient order was continued,” Kenrick concluded, “but with entire separation from the new line derived from Augustine, so that even as late as the days of Bede the Britons ‘had as lieve communicate with pagans as with the Anglo-Saxon Christians.’ At length they utterly disappeared.” (Bede’s Ecclesiastical History) Or did they…
It seems that we find them once again, perhaps, at about the time of the Crusades, eager to journey to Jerusalem. There they imbibed much in the way of Eastern mysticism, and perhaps even had something to do with the demise of the Templars. By the 14th century, the crusades at an end, they began influencing the theology of alienated clergy dissatisfied with social conditions and the disparity between the rich and poor, especially the more comfortable clergy. Already Gallicanists at heart, they found their true home in the heresy, which supported their distrust of Rome and championed their refusal to operate under the umbrella of the papacy. It was not difficult to take advantage of the panic caused by the Black Death that swept across Europe in the latter part of the 14th century; and stirring the pot to prolong the Western Schism was practically second nature. Quick-change artists from force of habit, they slid into another disguise for the time being following the Council of Constance. But they were never far away, and certainly they were always in reach of those wishing to denounce the papacy.
In describing the resurgence of these autocephalous bishops and churches following the condemnation of Gallicanism at the Vatican Council, Peter Anson wrote: "These schismatic bodies…are always quarreling among themselves, and forming yet more splinter churches. Some obtain bishops from other lines of succession or having done so, get them reconsecrated anew to assure a more 'valid' episcopal status." As Rev. Henry St. John pointed out in his introduction to Anson's book, "The obsession of the 'bishops at large' and their followers with the validity of orders has brought them to the belief that such validity is the sole hallmark of the Church and its authority. They are in effect reduced to saying, ‘Get valid orders and you can choose what you believe…They lay great stress on the supreme importance of orthodoxy which turns out to be no more than particular and sometimes variable ‘doxy.’" And Anson added that most Old Catholic clergy prefer to be consecrated by bishops "whose orders are recognized by Roman Catholics and Orthodox, but who yet himself is neither." These same heresies, these same splinterings and upheaval characterize the Traditionalist sect as surely as the sun rises in the East, exposing them for the schismatics they truly are.
In a letter to David Bawden written in the spring of 1990, Frenchman Andre Perlant explained why a pope can never be deposed for heresy. He expressed grave concerns that the retention of a false view of St. Robert Bellarmine’s teaching on this matter and commitment to the errors that surfaced during the Western Schism still existed in Traditionalism, particularly “the lies about Honorius I” and identified where these errors were headed. “Most authors or clerics… go on staunchly asserting that a real pope can fall into heresies. In fact they are (very) satisfied with the present situation, and favor the perduring of a new sort of Catholic ‘episcopal’ church similar to the orthodox oriental schismatic churches in Greece and Russia. They cannot be trusted by Catholics any longer. May God help us.” In short, the Gallicanists are with us once again in the guise of Traditionalist "clergy" and their lay apologists. They also are with us in the guise of Benedict 16, who announced many years ago that absolute adherence to the papacy had been reduced to a mere formality (to accommodate the schismatic Orthodox churches). And in order to ease their transition into the Conciliar church, the Vatican Council decrees on infallibility were declared by Ratzinger as no longer binding today as they were in the 19th and 20th centuries. (Principles of Catholic Theology, 1987) These false Christs portray themselves as the guardians and promoters of apostolic Tradition, yet they promote an entirely pagan Tradition. (See Traditionalists Are Not Catholic.)
Now there is a publication and several websites devoted to convening a Council and either electing or acclaiming a "Siri-line" pope. A certain Vietnamese layman began the efforts for Tello's council and now another Vietnamese "cleric" figures into the calling of the council that may possible proclaim him "Pope." Europeans associated with certain less than desirable political factions have long supported the council, although one longtime Traditionalist behind this effort, Elizabeth Gerstner, died last November. Another European supporter is reportedly in ill health. Will we see a council? No. Only yet another attempt to establish the abominable heresy of Traditionalism on the throne of truth.
Copyright © 2005 by T. Stanfill Benns
