I agree it’s probable but it’s very unprovable and we must make decisions of Faith based on facts.  Even if it were true, Siri died before +Benedict was elected so that means +Benedict was a valid pope?  Obviously, I say yes, based on Pius XIIs Law, though I qualify and say that he’s a pope in material respects only.  His spiritual office is, arguably, under ecclesiastical penalty.  

I don't agree that it is 'very unprovable'. 5 mins of white smoke, the Vatican Radio & choosing the name of Pope Gregory add up pretty well to moi. Then we have the known endorsement of Pius XII even though that is not actual evidence of election. :cheers:

I don't agree that it is 'very unprovable'. 5 mins of white smoke, the Vatican Radio & choosing the name of Pope Gregory add up pretty well to moi. Then we have the known endorsement of Pius XII even though that is not actual evidence of election.

That's all circuмstantial evidence which does not prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.  And I'd argue that to say that "pope x is not pope" would require more than reasonable doubt, it would require CERTAINTY, which can only be provided by an authority, such as the Church hierarchy.  You believe the Siri thesis because you want to, not because the facts are overwhelming.

There are 2 parts to the papacy - the material/govt office and the spiritual office.  Even if a pope were to lose his spiritual office due to heresy, he would still hold the material office until removed by the Church (assuming that's possible, because it's never happened before).  Based on the changes that Pope St Pius X and Pius XII made to the conclave rules, they envisioned a situation where a heretic/excommunicated pope could hold the material/govt office while being under spiritual penalty or privately excommunicated.  So, in a sense, yes, a heretic could still hold the office of the pope, even though they would not be a "true" spiritual pope becauase they are not orthodox.

It's a complex question with many different layers.

So you are saying spiritually the see is vacant?

Sedevacantists falsely believe that any catholic can judge the private intentions of another, determine perniciousness/obstinacy in error, determine defection from the Church, determine the falling away from the Faith.  There is NO law in Church history which supports this mindset.  As I quoted earlier, even +Bellarmine says that the Church must decide the heretical status of the pope first, then (for example), Divine Law and/or cuм Ex or any other number of laws would kick-in and the pope's office would be declared void.

All sedes skip Step 1 - determination of heresy.  They assume anyone can judge another of heresy.  This is their main flaw.

Pax,

You need to substitute "the pope" for "another" where indicated above. Even then, your position is subject to dispute, a rather open question, as to which your brother Sedevacantists are entitled to their very Catholic opinion.

As it stands, the breadth of your claim - i.e., in essence one cannot judge another of heresy - exceeds the bounds. We must judge, as indicated in a verse where "any one" is appropriately used:

Galatians 1:9
[9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
Sicut praediximus, et nunc iterum dico : si quis vobis evangelizaverit praeter id quod accepistis, anathema sit.

"Any one" is at the opposite pole from your position, which sounds like not judging anyone for, well, heresy, or a false gospel.
I leave you with this thought from John Daly's book Michael Davies, An Evaluation:

"Under a subtitle “Judgements of the simple human reason, duly enlightened”, Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, on p. 201 of the French edition of his Le Libéralisme est un Péché, a work approved by the Holy See, remarks:

'Yes, reader, reason is itself, as the theologians would say, a theological source (‘locus theologicus’) ... Reason must be subordinate to ... faith in all respects, but it is false to allege that reason is impotent on its own. It is therefore permitted, and even obligatory, for the layman to rationalize his faith, to infer its consequences, to apply it and to deduce parallels and analogies from it. The simple layman can distrust, at first sight, a novel doctrine presented to him insofar as he sees it to be in conflict with another, defined doctrine. If this conflict is clear, he can fight it as evil, and denounce as evil any book which supports it ... The faithful layman can do all that and has always done so, to the Church’s applause. This is not making himself the shepherd of the flock, nor even its humble servant ... What would be the use of the rule of faith and morals if the simple layman were unable to make immediate application of it himself in any particular case? ... The general rule of faith, which is the infallible authority of the Church, agrees – and must agree – that everyone apply it in the concrete by his particular judgment.' "

(Footnote 20, Pages 85-86)
 

Yes, both St Pius X and Pius XII made exceptions for the ecclesiastical penalties (any and all penalties, including excommunication for heresy) whereby, the penalties are not in force ONLY for the conclave.  Once a pope is elected and the conclave is finished, all penalities go back in force.  Meaning, that a heretic could elect AND be elected as pope, but once the election is over, that pope is SPIRITUALLY impaired because of the SPIRITUAL penalities in force, even if they still hold the GOVT/material office.  This is what I believe we are living through.

You're contradicting yourself. In this post and others you give a Sedeprivationist view, saying that the heretic Pope is implicitly impaired. But then later on you said that the Popes abrogated cuм Ex SO THAT a heretic could be validly elected Pope, to make sure the Papal See remained occupied. Why would they arrange it so that the Papal See would be occupied by someone who would then by spiritually impaired from their papal duties? 

I mean, assuming the world *isn't* about to end, that would make sense on the simple ground of "how else would you ever get a Pope?"  The only answer that I've seen that actually makes sense aside from "The world's gonna end so we don't need to" would be Sedeprivationism in that case.

I think anyone who recognises the Crisis in the Church believes the world's about to end. Even Novus Ordites should, because even they can Great Apostasy in how millions of people are abandoning the New Church too. 

You're contradicting yourself. In this post and others you give a Sedeprivationist view, saying that the heretic Pope is implicitly impaired. But then later on you said that the Popes abrogated cuм Ex SO THAT a heretic could be validly elected Pope, to make sure the Papal See remained occupied.

It's not a contradiction, if you distinguish between the material/govt and spiritual office.

Why would they arrange it so that the Papal See would be occupied by someone who would then by spiritually impaired from their papal duties? 

I can't answer for them, but I have some guesses:

1.  The material/govt office is important because it is the VISIBLE sign of a papacy, which is a visible sign of authority and unity of Catholics.  To many catholics, especially in these times of crisis, having a leader (even if it's a bad leader) is important to their human psyche and morale.  It helps to keep unity and order.

2.  If the material/govt office remains occupied, then also the Church's govt continues to operate, which means dioceses, parishes and schools keep operating and bishops who die are replaced with new bishops, etc.  Also, the jurisdiction of the Church continues, in a temporal sense.

The material/govt office is very important, just not as important as the spiritual.  By changing church conclave law to allow a potential heretic to be elected, you keep the Church operating and you keep up appearances, you "keep the lights on".  Once God intervenes to have mercy on the world by ending this crisis and blessing us with the resurrection of His Church, and a return to orthodoxy, then the new hierarchy can hit the ground running and "clean house" very quickly.  Odds are, if an orthodox pope were elected, there would be a good % of novus ordo bishops/priests who would convert also (and some of the Cardinals and hierarchy too).

If the conclave laws weren't changed and we abided by a strict interpretation of cuм Ex, then basically, there's no hierarchy and 95% of bishops/priests have lost their office.  There would be an end to any continuity of the Church govt.  Any future orthodox pope would have to "start from scratch" in the sense that most dioceses would be without any authority, structure or governance.  It would be the wild west for a few years (at least) until the Church could fill all the open positions and teach/educate these new bishops/priests how to operate a diocese. 

I think the decision to allow a spiritually impaired pope to exist is a practical step which is prudent in the times we live, since both Pope St Pius X and Pius XII saw the growing Modernism and envisioned a future where Modernism would corrupt almost everyone (and they were correct).  Practically speaking, a bad pope is the same as no pope, because the spirtual guidance and leadership does not exist in either case, but on a temporal level, there are some benefits to having a visible leader continue the human operations of the Church.