Let me begin by saying most people who I know who "believe the Siri thesis" do not actually claim that they are 100% sure that this is the case, only that it is highly probable that this or some variation of it is correct which Canon Law gives us sufficient room to do.

A few points do come to mind regarding what has been posted so far.

I defer to the theologian Cardinal Billot, the Doctor St. Alphonsus De Liguori, and the great Benedictine Abbot, Prosper Guéranger. They give the following rule: "The peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope by the whole Church is a sign and effect of a valid election."

This was written by veteran Vatican correspondant Gabriella Montemayor.
(1912-2005), whose career spanned 50 years, summarized the rumors that circulated among informed journalists in October 1958:

"Siri was alleged to have been elected at the conclave of 1958, from which, instead, came out Roncalli. The three well-known smoke signals, white, black, and then, finally, white, had aroused not a little perplexity and the same comment throughout the whole of the Italian peninsula: Who had been elected at the first white smoke?"...

"Everyone in Genoa insisted, even from the first day: It most certainly was Siri. Could he have abdicated? Had he been forced out? Was it politics or the Holy Ghost? The mystery remains yet today. "

I've talked to several people who remember the white smoke, hek my parents, both of them remember it. One fellow told me his grandfather told him that they hijacked the Church in 58 when the white smoke billowed from the Sistine Chapel and they announced that a new pope had been elected only to declare that it was a mistake an hour later.

Does this sound like "peaceful acceptance of the whole Church" to you?  Those in the know knew something was fishy right from the beginning. Even the the articles that appeared in the newspaper alluded to fraud "I guess the stove had a will of it's own" was one of the comments I recall coming form a major Italian newspaper the next day.

Anacletus II was nearly universally accepted by the faithful for several years after his pontificate began, that didn't stop St. Bernard from investigating the situation rallying behind Innocent II once he was convinced that he was the true pope..

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: Cupertino

The Church's official acts (without papal infallibility) are protected from any harm by the Holy Ghost.

I have stated on another post that the Church, as the Bride of Christ, is infallible.  The pope is not always so.  Therefore, he can teach err, even to the Universal Church.  However, you need to define "the Church's official acts".  Was Pope Paul VI signing onto Vatican II and promulgating the New Mass "the Church's official acts"?  I would say "NO"!

If the pope can teach doctrinal error (doctrine being the fundamental of our Catholicism), it only stands to reason that he can promulgate rites that are not beneficial and even harmful.

Based on your response, I really have to ask you...do you accept all the quotes I just gave as being true?

I really have to tell you that you do not understand the quotes you use.

 

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

If the pope can teach doctrinal error (doctrine being the fundamental of our Catholicism), it only stands to reason that he can promulgate rites that are not beneficial and even harmful.

No he can't. The Pope does not even have the authority to promulgate a new liturgy, much less a sacreligious one.

You are right he does not have that authority, it is a sin for him to do so. And noone is bound to obey him because he does not have the authority to do so. Futhermore there are three types of Obedience listed in theology, one of which, obeying an illegal command is a Mortal Sin.

It is irrelavant anyhow since he never officially promulgated the Novus Ordo, the notice came from the Congragation of Sacred Rites that it was to be used. Pope Paul VI's 'decree' amounted to "I like this book".

I don't even know how to debate with some of you the arguments are so weak.

So if you say or go to the Mass the Pope says is O.K. you sin mortally? :shocked:

I suggest you read some Trent. :reading: That's anathemetized.

So he never officially promulgated the Novus Ordo but it's said in every Roman Novus Ordo parish on the planet? You realize that Paul VI himself said it was not optional and that only older priests saying Mass alone would be dispensed of saying the New Mass.

I used to hold the SSPX position but it's so illogical I had to do more research. That's when I found John Lane's debates, Gerry Matattics, The SSPX 9 and the Siri Thesis. Than things made more sense.

Yes, I meant that cuм was incorporated into the 1917 code in a footnote dealing with the issue. Meaning it was cited because it's still law. Of divine origin since a heretic is not a member of the Church. Which has been established by numerous Popes and theologians through the centuries.  

And thank you for the person who rebutted that Pius XII was only lifting ecclesial excommunications. I was going to post the same. Thanks.

If you even thought that the Pope could do what you thought Pius XII was doing then you don't understand enough to be discussing these issues.

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

If the pope can teach doctrinal error (doctrine being the fundamental of our Catholicism), it only stands to reason that he can promulgate rites that are not beneficial and even harmful.

No he can't. The Pope does not even have the authority to promulgate a new liturgy, much less a sacreligious one.

When I said the pope "can", I did not mean that it is morally licit for him to do so.  I meant that he is physically or psychologically able to do so.

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: Cupertino

The Church's official acts (without papal infallibility) are protected from any harm by the Holy Ghost.

I have stated on another post that the Church, as the Bride of Christ, is infallible.  The pope is not always so.  Therefore, he can teach err, even to the Universal Church.  However, you need to define "the Church's official acts".  Was Pope Paul VI signing onto Vatican II and promulgating the New Mass "the Church's official acts"?  I would say "NO"!

If the pope can teach doctrinal error (doctrine being the fundamental of our Catholicism), it only stands to reason that he can promulgate rites that are not beneficial and even harmful.

[/b]

Holy Cow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :surprised: :shocked:

Stop now. Quit while you're ahead errr behind.

Canon 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety,[26] let him be anathema.

Kind of hard for a True Pope to give the Church a harmful rite if you believe what Trent teaches. Which by the way you sort of have to.

Notice I didn't say promulgate for the knitpickers BUT he certainly gave...

And the "Pope" can teach doctrinal error to the entire Church?

Talk about learning something new everyday....

I stand by what I said.  The Novus Ordo Rite is not part of the Catholic Church.

Yes, the pope can teach err, even to the whole Church.  All conditions require papal infallibility.  If even one is missing, then the Holy Ghost does not guarantee that the teaching is infallible.

You have just completely ignored the infallibility of the Church, as distinct from papal infallibility.

How so?