Response To Siri Refutation

A RESPONSE TO W. ALBRECHT’S VIDEO SERIES REFUTATION OF SIRI THESIS

By a faithful Catholic.

The Youtube Videos in question are referenced below:

The POPE in RED - Cardinal Siri Thesis: REFUTED (Parts I-V) Video Series by William Albrecht, an Apologist for the Catholic Legate: Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKE_RdoYseU Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N1MHcP-tBI Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuWsyRzJi00 Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0hvbATW1I8 Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D-oANlZDT4

Dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who as our Heavenly Mother, seeks the fulfillment of divine truth within all her blessed children. May we be as humble as Mary and as clever as Jesus. Amen.

Introduction This work is a short response to the refutation made by William Albrecht against the Siri Thesis, in which his videos concerning this matter have been closely examined, critically analyzed and deeply evaluated, leading to the appropriate rebuttals, responses and directions made in this document. I, the writer, have made no intention to support the Siri Thesis in this response, but rather provide critical responses to the quality and worth of William’s arguments, as they appeared, upon viewing, to be in so much in need of. I hope that this document will provoke a more serious and accurate overview of the Siri Thesis, in which arguments from either side be presented more soundly, and also with proper backing and evidential support. On another note, revealing why I wrote this, it was because I was simply not impressed nor convinced thoroughly enough by William’s refutation, and am seeking some greater scholarly contribution to this debate which will make such issues conclusive and bring them to an appropriate end. Personally, I do not like scandals, however until the truth of this matter is fully resolved, without a doubt and with all claims settled, and all errors corrected, I will remain in a state of search and enquiry, for the truth shall surely make me free. This work indeed will ‘stir the waters’ somewhat, however, such heavy things must eventually settle.

Outline Format: Each video has been given its own response in relation to the arguments stated in each. These individual responses contain headers to the actual amount of refutations validly made. There is a particular format adopted within the document to frame proper responses and to place commentaries in an ordered context.

A Note to William, If you examine your arguments presented in the videos overall, there is only one that is absolute, a few that are suggestive, and the rest are lacking in citation or basis. The unfortunate fact is that during your refutation of the Siri Thesis, as your videos are titled, you did not actually target the Siri Thesis directly in full, as to debate all its particular claims. What you have done instead is deviated to alternate sources wherein the claim of the Siri Thesis was neither completely disputed, but points challenged and merely touched upon. The Siri Thesis is not just about Cardinal Siri, but contains so many more points that were totally neglected. At multiple times, you attempted to refute the Popeinred.com, which contrary to the name of videos, may have seemed somewhat relevant, however this brought into the debate aspects that were simply not relevant to this refutation, such as your interpretation of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich’s vision. The videos were riddled which much logical fallacies, with generalizations, with insincere remarks (concerning Fr. Khoat and Cardinal Siri – regarding his pains & sufferings in particular), and other undesirables not suited in the context of a formal debate (refutation). I’m not sure what to make of your videos on an academic level, nevertheless I do accept it as an honest attempt to challenge the Siri Thesis. But, if someone asked me if these videos were indeed a “refutation” of the Siri Thesis, I would have to say ‘No’. Why? Because the Siri Thesis was not actually deconstructed point by point – reducing it to its fundamental arguments – then refuting it, in these videos. What seems rather to be the case was that you may have read it, then read other alternate sources, then assumed an entirely independent thought of what the Siri Thesis actually was, then from this refuted that particular creation. What I had originally hoped was that you would have refuted the Siri Thesis as it presented itself, understood for what the Siri Thesis holds, and not for what others hold or don’t hold for it. Nonetheless, nothing lost, however, by the grace of God may our understanding of this be brought to that perfect clarity, who is Christ. God bless.

Video 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKE_RdoYseU Refutation to Siri Thesis: None Refutation to Popeinred.com: None

Video 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N1MHcP-tBI Refutation to Siri Thesis: None Refutation to Popeinred.com: 1 Unsubstantiated. Refutation of Dimond Brothers: None 1) Cardinal Siri recognized Vatican II as a legitimate Council. [Evidence/References/Citation needed] Note: How is it determined that Cardinal Siri recognize Vatican II? By commission of support, or by omission of denial, or by direct reference to it? Please provide references. 2) Cardinal Siri said “If the Church will not divide, the Council would have buried her” [Clarify] Note: Transcription may be inaccurate. Please clarify what the argument in relation to this quote is. PERHAPS: “If the Church were not divine, this Council would have destroyed Her!” 3) Cardinal Siri supported Vatican II proceedings: • Cardinal Siri signed Documents [True] • Cardinal Siri did not (publically) denounce Vatican II during its undertaking [True] REBUTTAL: Question: However, did Cardinal Siri agree with Vatican II? Refer to: 1) The Year of Three Popes, p. 142. : “the greatest disaster in recent ecclesiastical history” – Cardinal Siri 2) Runaway Church, Seabury, 1975. p. 10. : “the greatest mistake in history” – Cardinal Siri 3) Fr. Khoat: “We will not be bound by these decrees” – Cardinal Siri 4) Cardinal Siri recognized as Pope: Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I and Pope John Paul II. [Evidence/References/Citation needed] NOTE: In what way did Cardinal Siri recognize these Popes – was it openly, directly, indirectly, or by omission or lack of denial? Please provide references. 5) Cardinal Siri got sufficient votes twice to become Pope in two Conclaves, but he refused it. At least two if not three, but he refused it’ (Malachi Martin)

Note: Malachi Martin states that Cardinal Siri refused the votes to become Pope on at least two occasions. However a third occasion is mentioned by Malachi Martin, in which he makes no confirmation whether or not (in this third case) Siri refused “it”, as he states with uncertainty “if not” the case being so. It is then unclear and not definite whether Siri got sufficient votes more than two or three times, perhaps even more. However, Malachi Martin confirms only at least that it is two, although in regards to it being at most, he makes no confirmation. Therefore the inclusion of this reference does not actually stand to refute the Siri Thesis.

Video 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuWsyRzJi00 Refutation to Siri Thesis: 1 Unsubstantiated. 1 Successful. Refutation to Popeinred.com: 0 Refutation of Dimond Brothers: 0 Refutation of Pope Michael: 0 Refutation of Fr. Khoat testimony: 0 Refutation of Hutton Gibson: 0 Refutation of Paul L. Williams: 0 1) We have nobody that was there at the Council (Conclave?) that claims that Siri initially accepted the Chair and then was forced to stand down. [Evidence/References/Citation needed or else considered False Statement]  Instead: We have nobody that was there at the Council (Conclave?) that [has made] claims [publicly] that Siri initially accepted the Chair and then was forced to stand down. [True Statement] 2) Not even Malachi Martin claimed that Siri was elected Pope. [Evidence/References/Citation needed or else considered False Statement]  Instead: Not even Malachi Martin [publicly] claimed [indefinitely] that Siri was elected Pope (in 1958) [True Statement] Did Malachi Martin state that Siri was never elected Pope in 1958? Refer to: 1) Malachi Martin claimed that Siri was elected Pope twice in two Conclaves, which may or may not include the 1958 Papal Conclave – therefore it cannot be ruled out unless shown to be so. 2) The Keys Of This Blood, Malachi Martin. In context, Malachi Martin claims Cardinal Siri was elected Pope in 1963, however did not mention Cardinal Siri elected in 1958. 3) All we really know is that he [Fr. Khoat] doesn’t seem so reliable. [Evidence/References/Citation needed] Note: What ‘seems to be’ and what ‘is’ are not to be considered the same thing unless proven so. Therefore, please provide references as to the definite reliability

of Fr. Khoat if you are going to refer to it. Speculations and presumptions do not suffice. 4) ‘How could Siri … follow the Novus Ordo, recognize Vatican [Council] II as a legitimate Council, and recognize all the listed Popes as true Popes.’ {Breakdown of Argument:) i. Cardinal Siri followed the Novus Ordo [Evidence/References/Citation needed] ii.

iii.

Cardinal Siri recognized Vatican Council II as a legitimate Council [Evidence/References/Citation needed] Refer to: 1) The Year of Three Popes, p. 142. : “the greatest disaster in recent ecclesiastical history” – Cardinal Siri 2) Runaway Church, Seabury, 1975. p. 10. : “the greatest mistake in history” – Cardinal Siri 3) Fr. Khoat: “We will not be bound by these decrees” – Cardinal Siri Cardinal Siri recognized all the listed Popes [Pope John XXIII to Pope JPII] as true Popes. (Published work titled “Gethsemane”) REBUTTAL: Does the mentioning of a name and its title render acceptance of a name and title? 1) Cardinal Siri, in his work ‘Gethsemane’ named Pope Paul VI. This is highly suggestive of his likely admittance/acceptance of Pope Paul VI as being Pope. This is a natural assumption to make. However it is not a definitive one. For example, the Jews knew Herod as King, but not in and of the same manner as they knew Christ, the true King. In the same vein it is entirely possible for Cardinal Siri to know Pope Paul VI as a Pope of a particular office, but not in the manner of office that is of the true Church divined by Christ. This makes clear that an utterance of a title by one does not indefinitely mean that it is a sign of approval, however could be otherwise, or none at all. Therefore although this point naturally assumes acceptance of a title, it is does not exclude other possibilities.

5) None of Cardinal Siri’s authentic publication suggests any truth to this poor Siri Thesis [Evidence/References/Citation needed] 6) Cardinal Siri … a man that would have not have stood for such disgusting smears (The Siri Thesis) [Evidence/References/Citation needed] Refer to: 1) 18 July 1985 Louis Hubert Remy and Monsieur de la Franquerie and Francis Dallais met with Cardinal Siri. Asking him whether he had been elected Pope in 1963. Cardinal Siri did not respond with a denial, a rebuke, nor a condemnation against this question [which has been claimed to be a “smear”], but instead considered it, heavily, as a serious issue.

7) Cardinal Siri named (first) President of Italian Episcopal Conference (1959) by Pope John XXIII. {Presumed argument:} 1) Cardinal Siri accepted position of President of Italian Episcopal Conference which was under the authority of Pope John XXIII, therefore accepting the authority of Pope John XXIII as valid. [Invalid - illogical argument] Refer to: i. Cardinal Siri accepts position. That alone does not determine or indicate why he accepted the position – whether it is in support, or under duress, or out of ignorance or etc. The conclusion to the one statement premise is incorrect. The premise alone stands to speculate why, but cannot absolutely determine it. 8) The ‘real’ Cardinal Siri never wrote any material supporting Sedevacantism. {Breakdown of Argument:} i. The ‘real’ Cardinal Siri never wrote any material supporting Sedevacantism [Evidence or False Statement]  Instead: The ‘real’ Cardinal Siri never wrote [publicly] any material supporting Sedevacantism. [True Statement] ii. The ‘real’ Cardinal Siri never wrote any material supporting Sedevacantism [Evidence/References/Citation needed] iii. The ‘real’ Cardinal Siri never wrote any material supporting Sedevacantism Note: Define “Sedevacantism” as recognized by Cardinal Siri. 9) The ‘real’ Cardinal Siri never supported any schismatic group or any group of Sedevacantists. {Breakdown of argument:} i. The ‘real’ Cardinal Siri never supported any schismatic group or any group of Sedevacantists. [Evidence or False Statement]  Instead: The ‘real’ Cardinal Siri never supported [publicly or showed public support for] any schismatic group or any group of Sedevacantists. [True Statement] ii. The ‘real’ Cardinal Siri never supported any schismatic group or any group of Sedevacantists. Refer to: 1) Fr. Khoat who became a Sedevacantist/ Sede-impedist after developed contact with Cardinal Siri. Cardinal Siri did not rebuke, condemn or correct Fr. Khoat’s views, but rather by continued communications aided this view, as leading to its mainstream proliferation and wider acceptance. 2) Cardinal Siri’s views of the Vatican Council II (aforementioned) support and correspond to the views of schismatics, Sedevacantists and Sede-impedists who also hold the same views, and quote him.

iii. iv.

The ‘real’ Cardinal Siri never supported any schismatic group or any group of Sedevacantists. [Evidence/References/Citation needed] The ‘real’ Cardinal Siri never supported any schismatic group or any group of Sedevacantists. [Invalid - illogical argument] NOTE: An outward action does not fully determine an inward belief. Cardinal Siri’s apparent lack of ‘outward support’ for schismatics, Sedevacantists or Sede-impedists does not equate to an inward belief or disposition lacking recognition/support of views held by schismatics, Sedevacantists or Sede-impedists.

10) The ‘real’ Cardinal Siri was saddened at Archbishop Lefebre’s stance and rejection of many reforms of Vatican II. {Breakdown of Argument:} i. The ‘real’ Cardinal Siri was saddened at Archbishop Lefebre’s stance and rejection of many reforms of Vatican II. [Evidence/References/Citation needed] ii. The ‘real’ Cardinal Siri was saddened at Archbishop Lefebre’s stance and rejection of many reforms of Vatican II. Refer to: Cardinal Siri’s views on the Vatican II (aforementioned) which invalidate this argument. 11) This is the real Cardinal Siri, who did not like schismatics [Evidence/References/Citation needed]. 12) Autobiography of Siri, stating that Lefebvre never had a following in Italy thanks to Siri. Siri did not accept Sedevacantism. He didn’t accept it in any form and he didn’t accept schismatics such as Archbishop Lefebvre. {Presumed Argument:} i. That Cardinal Siri did not accept schismatics such as Lefebvre. Therefore Cardinal Siri did not accept Sedevecantistm (including Sede-impedists) and schismatics. (Invalid - illogical argument) NOTE: Cardinal Siri’s non-acceptance of one particular schismatic individual does not logically equate to his denial of all schismatics, Sedevacantists and Sede-impedists. ii. Siri did not accept Sedevacantism. [Evidence/References/Citation needed] Refer to: Argument 9. ii. 1-2. iii. He didn’t accept it in any form. [Evidence/References/Citation needed] Refer to: Argument 9. ii. 1-2. iv. He didn’t accept schismatics (in general as argument implies). [Evidence/References/Citation needed] Refer to: Argument 9. ii. 1-2.

13) The real Cardinal Siri never knew of the disgusting lies circulating the world about him. Not about all of them at least. [Clarify or Evidence/References/Citation needed] {Presumed argument:} i. Cardinal Siri never knew of the ‘disgusting lies’ (theories) circulating the world about him (specifically the Siri Thesis theory of him being Pope). [False] Refer to: 1) Cardinal Siri’s knowledge of such a theory: 18 July 1985 Louis Hubert Remy and Monsieur de la Franquerie and Francis Dallais met with Cardinal Siri. Asking him whether he had been elected Pope in 1963. In which he replied “I am bound by the secret.” 14) All the documented evidence, every single piece of documented writing of Siri himself point to the complete opposite. [Evidence/References/Citation needed] 15) Is it possible that Siri was elected but refused the Office? Sure it’s possible. Therefore making such a thing quite possible. [Invalid - illogical argument] 16) Siri Thesis incorrect use of reference: Corriere della Sera 1939. The particular argument made by Siri Thesis (speculating the suspicious nature of the smoke) based on this false reference is false. Therefore, this refutation directed to the Siri Thesis is correct. However does not apply to the Popeinred.com website, which makes no use of this reference.

Video 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0hvbATW1I8 Refutation to Siri Thesis: 0 Refutation to Popeinred.com: 0 Refutation of Paul L. Williams: 0 1) Paul L. Williams claims to have gotten his sources from secret dispatches. So what we’re working on here is really just word-of-mouth information. [Invalid - illogical Argument] NOTE: The words “secret dispatches” are not alone indicative of word-of-mouth information, but may also include other types of mediums of information storage (paper, electro-magnetic, digital, etc). Neither is there any point at which the method of communication can be assumed by these words, nor the authenticity of a source as being more or less reliable. 2) Paul L. Williams and his books are completely based on conspiracy theories about the U.S, about 9/11, about the Catholic Church … [False]. NOTE: Reasoning is because Dr. Paul L. Williams is a journalist who has published many books and articles which undoubtedly a number in the least contain verified facts within them. So to say outright and absolutely that “his books are completely based on conspiracy theories” is not true.

POINT OF INTEREST: It may interest you to contact and speak directly with Paul L. Williams that of which it appears you can through this website in which his contact details are made known towards the end of the website post: http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/10/paul-williams-trial-to-begin.html He may also be officially contacted here: http://www.paulwilliamsdefensefund.com/contact.html 3) There goes the Sirinist’s claim to FBI documents that blow open the truth for the world to see. Paul L. Williams is eliminated from the picture as a reliable source. [False] NOTE: There is no refutation that has been provided to the credibility of the source relating to Cardinal Siri being elected Pope Gregory XVII. Instead, misleadingly, what is provided is a challenge (not a refutation) to Dr. Paul L. Williams’ claim that there was missing nuclear material at the McMaster University. That of which the lawsuit is still in progress and the charge against Williams is only an allegation at this point – not proven. Therefore, this video has not provided a refutation of the credibility of the FBI source in question, but has rather only tried to challenge the credibility of Williams on another matter, that of which has nothing to do with the Siri Thesis. 4) He [Dr. Paul L. Williams] works against those who believe in the Siri Thesis. [Evidence/References/Citation needed] NOTE: The reference to the work of Dr. Paul L. Williams is used by those who support the Siri Thesis and it seems that his work does not go against them but rather for them in this particular instance. If otherwise, please clarify. 5)

Private revelation is not obligatory for Catholics to believe. Note: The counter-interpretation of Anne Catherine Emmerich’s vision provided is quite irrelevant – as to the limitations of its verification, and also as this particular statement of prophecy by Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich is only one in numerous, and cannot be taken to view without viewing all others in their entirety and context, as well as considering the plethora of other prophecies referenced.

Video 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D-oANlZDT4 Refutation to Siri Thesis: 0 Refutation to Sedevacantist Church: 0 1) We aren’t told that Siri was the Archbishop of this Diocese of Genoa, now Genova. [False] Refer to: The following links below of the Popeinred.com website which gives reference to Cardinal Siri being Archbishop of Genoa. http://www.thepopeinred.com/thesis.htm

http://www.thepopeinred.com/1988.htm http://www.thepopeinred.com/bio-gregory-xvii.htm http://www.thepopeinred.com/defense.htm Also, it states in the Siri Thesis too that Cardinal Siri was the Archbishop of Genoa. 2) The Sedevacantist Church of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity is a Siri camp? [False] NOTE: By the explanation given, the Sedevacantist Church of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity cannot be regarded as a ‘Siri camp’ as they no longer hold to that belief, as this video reveals. Therefore they represent no longer the Siri Thesis and can only speak as to why they defected. This video has not provided reasons as to why this defection occurred, as an argument against the Siri Thesis, so it is that there is no refutation or argument present in this statement. 3) This is the very Church where Fr. Khoat decided to come and preach. Wow, I’m really going to get down and into all the info that is strongest to the support of the Siri thesis. Right? [Invalid - illogical Argument] Note: It is true that Fr. Khoat has preached there. However, it is not true that the ‘info’ that is strongest to the support of the Siri Thesis should reside there. This is false, as: a) They no longer hold to the Siri Thesis, so if they represented the strongest point, then because they have defected, that would mean therefore that all other Sedevacantists/Sede-impedists groups as weaker points would have likewise defected. Is this the case? No, as some groups supporting the Siri Thesis still exist. Therefore this Sedevacantist Church in question is not holding info that is strongest to the support of the Siri Thesis. b) Fr. Khoat and his associates would represent those who would have info that is strongest to the support of the Siri Thesis, seeing that they are the primary preachers of this message, and also they are the principle ‘founders’ so to speak of this movement of public awareness towards most of the contents of the Siri Thesis. c) It is quite obvious, simply by observation of the prolific ‘Siri’ material that website groups such as Popeinred.com host, represents more so to hold info that is strongest to the support of the Siri Thesis, considering they exist for this very reason, unlike the Sedevacantist Church, which does not. 4) One thing they place on the list of heresies is also the Siri Thesis. Note: This only states what they have done, not why they have done it, nor whether why they did it was valid or correct. So this statement cannot be acknowledge at all as an argument. 5) Mr. Rios knows Fr. Khoat and Mr. Hobson. And after Fr. Khoat asked Mr. Rios to attend the Church again, Mr. Rios refused him. Mr. Rios sent Fr. Khoat a list of

things that he wanted before ever accepting Fr. Khoat back into his Church. And Fr. Khoat seemingly realized it was too much for him to handle. Too many questions to answer. Too many questions that Fr. Khoat couldn’t handle. Fr. Khoat seemingly knows that the Popeinred Thesis is ripe for the refutation. People out there are realising more and more that this heresy is pretty much been stamped out already and those from this camp are losing their supporters at an alarming rate. Virtually 90% of all the websites and groups that supported the Siri Thesis have abandoned it and have admitted that it cannot be held logically. It is not Catholic. {Breakdown of Argument:} 1) Fr. Khoat seemingly realized it was too much for him to handle. Too many questions that Fr. Khoat couldn’t handle. [Evidence/References/Citation needed] Note: The word ‘seemingly’ does not hold in what should be a sound argument. If presenting an argument for debate, do so with certainty, and not a “seeming” certainty 2) Fr. Khoat seemingly knows that the Popeinred Thesis is ripe for the refutation. [Evidence/References/Citation needed] Note: Please refer to note above in likeness to this argument. 3) People out there are realising more and more that this heresy is pretty much been stamped out already and those from this camp are losing their supporters at an alarming rate. [Evidence/References/Citation needed] 4) Virtually 90% of all the websites and groups that supported the Siri Thesis have abandoned it and have admitted that it cannot be held logically. [Evidence/References/Citation needed] Note: Please provide evidence that “it cannot be held logically” as the logical side of the arguments has been lacking overall in this video series on the refutation of the Siri Thesis. 6) Jesus was not a liar. Period. No argument present here. 7) No one has the authority to come right out and claim they have the true Church with no documented evidence of a sort. [False] Note: No one has the authority except that which is given to him by Christ. Therefore a truly elected Pope has the authority to come right out and claim he has the true Church with or without the presence of documents [to Catholics, heretics or apostates] as to defend the true Church. Also, all Catholics have an obligation/responsibility to claim what is the true faith as being the true faith in Christ, against error. Likewise, all Catholics have an obligation/responsibility to claim what is the true Church as being the true Church in Christ, against false religions and false teachings, preferably with documents, lest the unbeliever disbelieves. 8) This series goes to every single claim and refutes every single claim put forth. [False]

Note: There are many claims from the actual Siri Thesis which have not been addressed, refuted or even identified. As the Siri Thesis in itself, draws not only on issues regarding Cardinal Siri, but also relating to: the legitimacy of the Papacies of Pope John XXIII to Pope John Paul II, the validity of the Papal Conclave of 1963, the nomination of Cardinal Tedeschini in Papal Conclave 1958, the freemason membership of Cardinal Roncalli and Cardinal Montini, The assassination of Cardinal Luciano, the heretical writings and actions of Cardinal Wojtyla, Prophecy, Freemasonry, Communism and etc. The great bulk of work in the Siri Thesis, though it holds Cardinal Siri as an integral part, makes an insignificant amount of references to him in comparison to other persons and issues contained. The number of references per issue makes this quite plain and obvious.

Conclusion This work was done in a day, I hope more can be done to clear this up. If we had the time, I know, but by the grace of God all heresy in regards to this matter will be recognized and put to rest. All truth in regards to this matter, I pray will be elevated beyond the realm of scandal which this currently occupies, and will actually serve to enlighten our faith in the way God intends it. God bless.

Original Document Completed & Published: 10th October 2009 Updated Document (Revised for minor spelling/syntax errors and American English) – First Revision: 10th October 2009.