Since your post refers to " a number" could you give a few examples of Popes who were reported to ..."check out" ........ & who exactly are you quoting here?

The Forum awaits a reply to these questions...

You just KILLED the Siri hypothesis. Well done! Awesome points. And this is why I think the Siri hypothesis is weak at best and stupid at worst.

And furthermore, what about Pope Benedict who was elected after the death of Siri? I thought Pope Francis was supposed to be the un-canonically elected "Destroyer" of the St. Francis prophecy? And Cardinal Siri was dead at BOTH of their elections -- how could a dead pope prevent another pope from being elected validly?

Was the whole College of Cardinals "tainted" (think: contagious cooties) by going with a false pope for so long, and so they couldn't ever elect a valid pope again?

It doesn't add up. The Siri hypothesis is stupid and solves nothing. It must have originated in the minds of 10 year olds. Not very bright 10 year olds, I might add.

No, it's not stupid at all.  First of all, it's not just something that popped into someone's head while smoking weed.  There's a lot of circuмstantial evidence for it.

Siri's election would have impeded Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, and Wojtyla.  He was of course dead before Ratzinger and Bergoglio.  At that point, it depends.  If you're a straight sedevacantist, by that time there were no legit cardinals left to to have been able to elect Ratzinger or Bergoglio.  If you're not a straight sedevacantist, say, a sedeprivationist, that still doesn't rule out other impediments to Ratzinger/Bergoglio holding office (such as heresy or the fact that both were consecrated ... and the latter even ordained ... in the New Rite).

You're coupling the "Destroyer Pope" prophecy way too tightly with the Siri hypothesis.  It's obviously a matter of interpretation ... assuming that the prophecy is even genuine and accurate.  But one way to read it is referring to Roncalli, the first one who would have been impeded by Siri's election.  Roncalli was indeed the first in a long line of destroyers, and he set into motion everything that followed afterwards, including elevating Montini to Cardinal and greasing the skids for his election.  Alternatively, the "Destroyer Pope" might refer to another pope yet to come.  It's nothing more than speculation at this point.

I will take this paragraph as an example.  Sedevacantism doesn't have anything to do with the Church "exiting" Rome.

There are several opinions about what would happen if all the cardinals died, none of which is fundamental to sedevacantism, nor does it refute it.

Ordinary jurisdiction isn't undisputedly necessary for a legitimate papal election.  And this concern doesn't even apply to sedeprivationism.

As for there being "no actual Roman clergy," several theologians do hold that an Imperfect Council could elect a Pope in that case.  And, once again, this does not apply to sedeprivationism.

Very few sedevacantists are divided on the "Baptism of Desire" question.  99% of sedevacantists are the ones most violently opposed to Feeneyism.  You have only the Dimonds who combine sedevacantism and Feeneyism.

And, would you please stop dabbling with Eastern Orthodoxy lest you end up losing your faith and your soul.  There's absolutely no way in which their ecclesiology is "worse off than the Orthodox."  Orthodox are at once schismatics and heretics with nothing even approaching a Catholic ecclesiology?

Just this one paragraph is such a hot mess that you need to go back to the drawing board and study the basics of the Catholic faith (i.e. vs. Orthodoxy) before weighing in so confidently on a complex topic.

I had a response written out, but I've decided to delete it. I don't want to get caught in the weeds with a discussion on something so complex when I should be focusing on the basics, as you've said.

I do disagree with you, and I don't think you represented me well here, but you're ultimately right that I shouldn't be on a forum the day after being baptized.