This imposter is an unelected, heretical, illegal anti-pope. :detective:
Why with what elegance you speak, its a wonder we're not all sedevecantists/ Sirites. :rolleyes:
I subscribe to the Siri hypothesis and at the same time reserve the possibility that some of the subsequent popes were valid.
Cardinal Siri may have been legally elected and accepted the job, then threatened and stepped aside. Since he never stood above the people in St. Peter's Square and publicly accepted the papacy, in my book, it's like an unconsummated marriage after both spouses said "I do". That would have left the papacy open to another: Paul VI. Then Paul VI would or
could have been the valid pope, until that time, whenever that was, that he stopped being a Catholic (if that happened
after he was elected.)
As for the cardinals appointed by Paul VI, and the validity of their votes in conclave, I don't necessarily agree. As ancient elections were held giving the vote to lay people of Rome, many of whom were likely apostates, but we trust that the Holy Ghost guided those elections, then why can't we say the same about the subsequent elections of JPI, JPII, BXVI, and Francis? Or at the very least, entertain the possibility of the validity of those elections?
The way that I see it, this can almost be seen in the same way that we look at Common Error with regards to the validity of confessions. If the churchmen get together to hold the election, and all appear to be Catholic, even though some are not, which has probably
always been the case, then perhaps we can trust the Holy Ghost to ensure that the election is valid. I'm not saying this definitively as I'm not a theologian and not qualified to make the call. Please correct me if you see holes in my logic. But these are my thoughts currently on the situation, and I do subscribe to the Siri Hypothesis.
Topic: Anti-pope Francis 1 (Read 2296 times)