CathInfo.com

Additionally, in the case of Ratzinger, one could follow the +Vigano argument and say that Ratzinger's “intent to be an orthodox pope” is HIGHLY doubtful at the time of his election (and also afterwards).  If one looks at his history of supporting V2 and the new mass and all the heretical books he wrote before his papacy…the guy was not orthodox.  His intent was to “hybridize” the Trads with the modernists.  Which he was highly successful in accomplishing.  Therefore, his papacy was suspect, from the very beginning, for lack of an intent to be a proper pope.

This goes double for Francis.  Take 30min and research his abominable, new age, ecuмenical acts in Argentina.  The guy is a flaming modernist.

Yes, there are many possible hypotheses.  I myself don't find the vitium consensus argument from +Vigano and Bishop Sanborn very convincing, since it borders on having to look into the internal forum to detect their intentions.  One could try to infer this intention from their actions, but it's very problematic.

I find this position problematic.  I find the "manifest heresy" accusations (especially from before their election) to be highly problematic.  Really, the simplest solution, the one which explains everything is the Siri Thesis.  I do believe they were conscious infiltrators and deliberate agents of destruction ... but I also believe that God would prevent legitimate popes from wrecking the Church due to the Holy Spirit's protection over the papacy ... either causing them to drop dead or converting them.  And that's the compelling perspective from the Siri Thesis, that they were not legitimately elected at all, and as a result lacked that protectoin by the Holy Spirit.

In any case, the important thing:  Conciliar Church is NOT the Catholic Church.  That's key.  And that distinguishes Traditional Catholics from the smells-and-bells traditional Catholics like Nishant.

Right but the Siri thesis fails for Benedict/Francis.  In their case, you have multiple “doubts” which could apply individually or even all 3 - doubt of orders, doubt of intent and doubt of heresy.  All of these doubts exist both before and during their papacies and are major problems. 

I agree that none can be proven but that’s why they’re called doubts.  But the facts are serious enough to warrant positive doubts in all 3 areas. 

As I mentioned, with straight SVism and Siri Theory ... by the time you get to Ratzinger's "election" 47 years after the death of Pius XII, there aren't any legitimate Cardinals left.  It's only Sedeprivationism that would allow those Cardinals to be legit.  With SV and ST, they're not even materially popes.

I like that ... it rhymes:  SV, SP, and ST.

But at this point they're all theories and it's a serious mistake to dogmatized them.  Key point is that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.

Reading up on the office of Cardinal….there’s no time-honored, set criteria.  At some point in the past, even laymen were picked as Cardinals.  In recent history, even priests have been chosen.

In most cases, if non-bishops are chosen, they are made bishops.  But it’s not a requirement. 

So the question becomes…since the main duty of a Cardinal is of the human/govt realm (ie to elect a pope and govern the Roman Curia offices), then it makes sense that even if a pope were a heretic (ie only holds material/govt power…in the SP view), then he could still rightfully appoint Cardinals being this appointment/office is mostly of a govt function. 

The fact that some may be only priests (or none at all) would not impede their function as pope-voters, but would impede any spiritual functions only.

Right, that's the sedeprivationist view.  But they'd have to be appointed by an actual material pope.  In the SV/ST positions, these men were not appointed by individuals who were even materially pope.  SVs reject the distinction, holding that a heretic pope is not pope in any way and his appointments are illegitimate.  ST holds that these men weren't materially popes because their elections were invalid (an ST individual could also be an SP in theory, just believing that it doesn't apply here -- and that's actually my position).

I believe that SP/Fr. Chazal's position make more sense than straight SV, which does have some pretty significant issues with it ... but, while I hold this in theory, I don't think it actually applies here due to also be a believer in the Siri Theory, which would mean that these men were not even materially pope (due to illegitimate election).  HAD they been legitimately elected, i.e. I'm wrong about the Siri thesis, then the fallback would sedeprivationist view.

I'm not necessarily arguing a position here, just listing them and noting the differences.