How does ANY position on the crisis account for that fact? Basically, the Church's infallibility centers around the papacy, with the bishops needing to teach in union with the Holy Father. If Roncalli/Montini weren't legitimate popes, whether because of Siri being the Pope or for other reasons, then their acts would not be protected by the Holy Ghost. Siri Thesis is in a way just a variation on SVism, an alternative explanation for WHY these guys weren't legitimate popes.
Not ALL the bishops signed, though, as we know at least of Archbishop Arrigo Pintonello who signed none of the docuмents.
That was a response to my inquiry:
But how does the Siri Thesis account for the fact that ALL of the bishops and cardinals at VII signed docuмents that deny the First Commandment and the need for the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
When we consider that:
To reject one dogma of the Catholic Church is to reject all Faith, since Christ is the guarantor of its dogmas:
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“… can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by that very fact falling into heresy? – without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others… But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavor than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by apostolic tradition.”it seems clear that what took place at VII, including many signed statements such as this one (as noted above only one is necessary)
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and
together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." 
wasn't just a
"papal apostasy"
but was in fact
the
GREAT APOSTASY.Almost (what save one or two maybe?)
ALL of them LEFT THE CHURCH.Bull of Pope Paul IV — cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559“Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:
— “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.
— “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.
— “Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of tune in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way . . .
— “Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected —and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.
— “Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”
Unless they made a public abjuration of error which I have never heard about. ??
So the idea that only the pope is invalid and all the rest are somehow still in the Church and still hold office
materially or formally
defies simple logic.
They apostatized
en masse.
So cօռspιʀαcιҽs about "kidnapped popes" or "doves landing on a pope's head" really shouldn't matter.
They (almost) ALL gave God the finger, thumbed their nose at the First Commandment, and denied the necessity for the salvific sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christpublicly and signed their names to it.The whole lot of them left the Church
and their office and their subsequent elections and declarations are
"null, legally invalid and void". cuм ex
Topic: Does B’nai B’rith have the right to veto a Papal election? (Read 4478 times)