This was my response to one entrenched in Sirinism that was quite civil:
It is an honor to speak with you and God bless your devotion. May God reward you. I'm not sure you realize how refreshing a civilized response to my queries are to me. I thank you for your courtesy. I used to think that is how all Catholics were supposed to act but I guess that changed as well as everything else.
I would like to answer in detail at some point. There was not much that jumped out at me right away that I could disagree with apart from the bit about not judging. Perhaps the following article will be of use to you:
https://romeward.com/articles/239752647/can-a-private-individual-recognize-an-uncondemned-hereticAlso from Novus Ordo Watch:
The principle exempting the Pope from all judgment, therefore, applies to all valid holders of the papal office only, and it has no bearing whatsoever on what is a completely different question altogether, namely, how to ascertain
whether a particular individual’s claim to
be the Pope is true or not. This latter issue is, of course, of the utmost importance, especially considering
the nature and function of the papacy, but we will leave its in-depth discussion for a future blog post.
The only other thing was the ignoring of docuмented evidence. Your saying we do not have to accept it because they could be doctored or because of the source is a double-edged sword. I could say the same thing about anything you claim that I believe or know to be false. Also, the fact that he offered the new mass, and acknowledged the apostates as popes is common knowledge and not disputed.
I could tell a pro-lifer that I don't think the blob of tissue in the mother's womb is a person because I don't like the sources who tells me it is and believe the sonograms are doctored. So I won't even have discussion with someone who doesn't accept proof.
Some of the Siri ideologues are incapable of a dispassionate discussion on the issue. They seem to think we must have a pope no matter how we get one and the heck if he claims not to be pope, acknowledges others as pope and offers the abominable new mess.
If you claim he is not a pertinacious heretic well you can say the same thing about the Lutherans. But in Siri's case
we are not to presume ignorance where such ignorance would constitute a dereliction of duty. I see no reason to draw any distinction between Siri and the other Modernists in that regard. We have to go by what is outwardly apparent. At the end of the day these people are not professing Roman Catholicism. Sirinism gets us nowhere apart from maybe, if true, explain how we got to where we are. What did "pope" Siri do for the Church from 1958 - 1989? I don’t see what this gives us other than having a Pope who to all appearances wasn’t Pope and didn’t act like a Pope and basically participated in the same auto-destruction as all the rest. What does this solve? Many including Gary, I think, until recently thought having the office being in tact in perpetuity as meaning we must always have a pope apart from short interregnums.W
ell that’s fine but it would be easier to just say the current claimants are popes then? Just use all the excuses for Siri and apply them to the other novus ordo popes. Fair’s fair. Ockham’s razor - no need to multiply explanations if a simple one will do. It would be MUCH more reasonable, I think, to simply say that a true Pope was elected, we don’t know who, and he went into hiding and passed on the succession. Popes in exile are possible and that has happened in the past. But this idea that the Pope can be Pope and yet act like a heretic and deny he is Pope, that’s absurd.