CathInfo.com

Great story and great writing (I mean the post). Thank you for this.

Thanks.  I just whipped it out, as I said, stream of consciousness, just recounting what happened there ... similar to how I wrote the piece in the OP, just rattled it off, if I recall, in about two hours one Sunday afternoon, with the most time-consuming part being to copy various citations from theological texts into the paper, without having the time (or the need I thought) to translate them, thereby taking heat over it from Fr. Cekada.

Is how you have explained the historicity of dogmatic facts, why you hold in part the "Siri Theory"? I thought I remember you mentioning believing in his legitimacy or at least that his whole drama may have invalidated John XXIII's election. Sorry if I got the nuance of your own personal position wrong, just looking for a little clarification.

Well, I came to those two conclusions independently, but they are related in a way, with some overlap.

If you hold the theory that Universal Peaceful Acceptance can actually provide a sanatio for an illegitimate election, then you'd say it doesn't matter, when the Church accepted Roncalli, this effectively deposed Siri.  I have real problems with mechanisms that would depose a pope, since they savor of Conciliarist heresy.

I know that a lot of SVs attack the Siri Theory ironically from a Universal Acceptance perspective ... the problem for them being that it also backfires on the, since that would make Roncalli and Montini legitimate Popes.  See, NOBODY considered those two men heretics nor demonstrated that there was any evidence for manifest heresy before their election.

That's where the recent shift to "well, we now hold that they were never popes to begin with due to heresy" labors under serious difficulties.  OK, then show the manifest heresy of Roncalli and Montini before Vatican II.  Roncalli had a file on him for being "suspect of Modernism" and there are rumors of his having engaged in various non-Catholic behaviors, and there were rumors of unnatural vices practiced by Montini ... but I haven't seen a shred of evidence for manifest heresy for either one of them before their election.

So there are serious problems with SVism that the Siri Theory explains.

SVs generally reject Univeral Acceptance ... pretty much have to.  They can say, "Accepted by whom?" ... meaning those who accept him are all heretics?  But was that really true AT THE TIME Montini was elected, that all the bishops of the world AT THAT TIME were heretics?  You might be able to pull that off for Bergoglio since by this time it's likely true.

Siri Thesis explains it all, 100%.  SVism has serious issues.  With SPism, Bishop Sanborn somewhat modifies Universal Acceptance theory (subtly so that people don't notice) where it merely guaranteeds the legitimacy of an election, not the formal posession of office.  So this would rule out Siri Thesis ... but permit him to continue holding to the formal vacancy of the See.  Again, you still have problems with Montini (for the same reasons above, as to why he's not also a FORMAL pope, since I see no evidence of manifest heresy in him before election).  Yet it's also completely wrong.  Billot stated that UA derived from the notion that the Church could never accept a false rule of faith, not that the Church couldn't be mistaken about the legitimacy of an election.  If the Church generally accepted Montini as the FORMAL POPE, i.e. the rule of faith ... then this would mean he was the FORMAL POPE ... despite Bishop Sanborn's sleight of hand attempting to redefine UA theory.